Quote: theox1971 @ September 1, 2007, 2:40 PMBut there is a world of difference between making fun of God and making fun of religion.
apart from the fact that God is largely manmade concept itself 
OK, now I'm treading a very thin ice.
PS. My wife also believes Life Of Brian is blasphemous. 
I don't believe in God, either, but surely a Christian would be able to tell the difference between a joke about Jesus, and a joke about the Archbishop of Canterbury.
P.S. Your wife is wrong - Life of Brian is not blasphemous, it heretical.
Oh, and it's also the funniest British film ever made.
Well... seriously, I don't want to go into theological etc. discussions on Saturday night, when I still have so much work to do...
But my experience is, for many Christians - religion=God. And there's no telling otherwise. To joke about Archbishops, Popes, clergy in general is to offend God.
Quote: theox1971 @ September 1, 2007, 3:52 PMOh, and it's also the funniest British film ever made.
...which is exactly what I claimed as the first person to replay in this thread 
Back to the topic - there's this film about a Welsh town, about two red-haired brothers from a trailer park, a family not unlike the Royles... It is called Twin Town. It had rather dark humor, and it turned quite dramatic at the end. Definitely not the top 10 film for me, but I liked it for what it was.
I see your point about Christians and their religion=god point of view and it is exactly that ridiculas view that the Pythons were lampooning in Life Of Brian. They were saying that as individuals we have a right to worship God (or not) in our own way, without a third party interpreting it all for us. The Pythons realised that Jesus' teachings were pretty much satire-proof, so chose to steer clear of making fun of them. They chose instead to send up the over zealous "followers" who try to tell everyone how to live.
The Welsh film that you're trying to recall is "Twin Town".
http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt0120394/
Cheers
I don't try to tell anyone how to live. In fact, there have been people who have known and have taken about a year to realise I'm a Christian.
Quote: Dave @ September 1, 2007, 4:51 PMI don't try to tell anyone how to live. In fact, there have been people who have known and have taken about a year to realise I'm a Christian.
I was referring to the followers in the film, not you personally. I don't think the Python boys were out to send you up, although it was you that denounced the film as blasphemous without knowing the definition of the word.
Quote: theox1971 @ September 1, 2007, 4:58 PM... Although it was you that denounced the film as blasphemous without knowing the definition of the word.
Blasphemy is taking God's name in vain or mocking him in any way. To be completley honest with you, I can't say I appreciate you telling me that I don't know the definition of the word. You don't know what I know or don't know and I don't know what you know or don't no. And if you really want to talk about religion, post in the off topic board.
When is god's name taken in vain in Life of Brian? and when is he mocked?
I had already addressed this point 2 days ago when I said :
"I can't let this one go. It's one thing to say that Life of Brian isn't funny, but to say that is blasphemous is absurd! Blasphemy is defamation of the name of God. At no point in Life of Brian is God defamed. Jesus appears in the film and is played absoulutely straight - he recites the Sermon on the Mount and genuinely heals a leper. The Python's didn't make a film about the ridiculousness of God, but about the ridiculousness of blind faith. It mocks religion, but that is not the same as mocking God Himself. If anything Life of Brian is a heresy, that is it holds on opinion that is different or in opposition to the doctrine of the Christian Church. "
As Life of Brian does not defame God's name, yet you persist in calling it blasphemous, I can only assume that you don't know the meaning of that particular word.
And discussing the content of a comedy film, in a thread called "funniest British films" is definately not off topic!
Strange how some here are more interested in my opinion about Life of Brian. I wouldn't be. And that was only one film I mentioned. What about Bridget Jones recycling material from other sitcoms? That's a more interesting topic.
You're accusing Brian of being something that it ain't. Bridget Jones, on the other hand is, as you rightly point out, crap.
Right! That does it.
I'm joining in the argument!
Not really, can't be arsed.
Also, I haven't seen the Only Fools and Horses Batman & Robin episode so I don't know if it was a rehash. Can't see what that has to do with the use of a tarts and vicars party though, which is a very common reference countrywide.
Dave : 'Life of Brian' is widely recognised as being one of the greatest comedy movies ever made so when you label it 'rubbish' and 'feature length blasphemy' you quite rightly receive a few opposing views.
And as for stating that for many people God=(their)Religion and that they can't differentiate between the two then that may well be the case, but it seems to be a very narrow-minded view of both life and God.
I can differentiate between God and religion. But if you're asking me if I can differentiate between God and Christianity, then the answer would be, again, yes.
Why do you consider Life of Brian to be blasphemous, then?
The whole idea that Brian's life mirrors Jesus'. OK, so the fact that he was born down the street from Jesus was mildly amusing and The Three Wise Men having to put up with that woman Mandy (?), but beyond that I think, the whole film is a bit of an ethical grey area.
And the general message is that people who followed Jesus when he was alive the first time around didn't think for themselves. It was also suggested that Brian's followers just wanted a religion and so hailed him the "Messiah" - and that's pretty blasphemous in itself. No one should be dubbed the "Messiah" if it isn't, in actuality, the case at all. And mistaking every little accident and incident as some sort of Biblical sign. All the film's saying is that Christianity is nothing more than a mistaken interpretation of something witnessed first hand and it generally made a mockery of faith. It painted the followers - and, by association, Jesus' followers - as complete dunderheads and plainly suggested that not only could they not think rationally, but that they also promoted the religion to the extent that millions of humans would spend the next two thousand years chasing an illusion.