John Cleese Careful...
 
Notifications
Clear all

John Cleese Carefully Considers Your Futile Comments  

  RSS

HG
 HG
(@hg)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 96
25/03/2012 9:37 pm  

(Ḯ'm not sure if this should be in "Recommendations" instead...)

I recently saw the YouTube video "John Cleese Carefully Considers Your Futile Comments", where he answers selected comments from Monty Python YouTube videos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8Afv3U_ysc

I found the part from 0:53 to 1:51 to be highly relevant to Thelema, Aleister Crowley and a lot of the discussions we're having here.

I'll transcribe it for easy reference and quoting:

User kramnesnay comments in the video "Stoning":

"As a christian pastor, I thought this movie was not only hilarious, but this particular clip highlights what can happen when people take religion too literally, all religious leaders should watch it!"

John Cleese's excellent response:

"I love that comment, because I think the central problem of any religion is that the founders of religion are always extraordinarily intelligent people.  And what you notice as you get older, is that extraordinarily intelligent people are not literal minded.  And the great problem with religion is when what is said by the founder of the religion, which was supposed to be taken metaphorically, is taken literally.  And that's when you get complete nonsense being made of what the founder of the religion said - and indeed people claiming, more or less, that the founder of the religion said the opposite of what they believe, except they haven't realized that."


Quote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
27/03/2012 8:19 pm  
"HG" wrote:
"I love that comment, because I think the central problem of any religion is that the founders of religion are always extraordinarily intelligent people.  And what you notice as you get older, is that extraordinarily intelligent people are not literal minded.  And the great problem with religion is when what is said by the founder of the religion, which was supposed to be taken metaphorically, is taken literally.  And that's when you get complete nonsense being made of what the founder of the religion said - and indeed people claiming, more or less, that the founder of the religion said the opposite of what they believe, except they haven't realized that."

I really like that the initial comment came from a Christian pastor.

Cleese's response is a great quote and, indeed, very appropriate here. We might also consider, more specifically for Crowley's case, that in addition to being often far less literal than some of his followers seem to think, Crowley was very aware that it's damn easy to just plain make up a religion and have people subscribe to it.

As he wrote:
It’s only too easy to form a cult,
To cry a crusade with “Deus Vult”—
But you won’t get much of a good result
From empty-headed Athenians.

The people of London much resemble
Those empty-headed Athenians.
I could very easily make them tremble,
Those empty-headed Athenians.
A pinch of Bible, a gallon of gas,
And I, or any otherguess ass,
Could bring to our mystical moonlight mass
Those empty-headed Athenians.

[Just a note: I happened to see that the version of this poem on the OTO website has "to cry a cult" instead of "to form a cult." If anyone's reading this who has power to change that typo, you might want to]


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
24/11/2012 1:14 am  
"HG" wrote:
John Cleese's excellent response:

"I love that comment, because I think the central problem of any religion is that the founders of religion are always extraordinarily intelligent people."

I rather admire John Cleese, but I think that he rather overestimates the intelligence of the "founders" of the world's major religions; the two major religions being those based on the Koran and the Bible.

The fables of Mohammad and Jesus of course are most likely to be fictional, so by the "founders" of these two fables, I would point to the authors and editors of the texts, and with the New Testament in particular, this text appears to have been derived from "in all, two thousand two hundred and thirty-one scrolls and legendary tales of gods and saviors, together with a record of the doctrines orated by them (""Life of Constantine;" see http://www.michaelsherlock.org/forum/christian-apologetics/the-forged-origins-of-the-new-testament )"

As as far as them being highly intelligent, Origen describes those who gathered together to decide upon what texts and passages to include in the Great Book of Constantine's new religion for the masses as being "...the most rustic fellows, teaching strange paradoxes. They openly declared that none but the ignorant was fit to hear their discourses ... they never appeared in the circles of the wiser and better sort, but always took care to intrude themselves among the ignorant and uncultured, rambling around to play tricks at fairs and markets ... they lard their lean books with the fat of old fables ... and still the less do they understand ... and they write nonsense on vellum ... and still be doing, never done."
(Contra Celsum ["Against Celsus"], Origen; see previous hyperlink) 

And the great problem with religion is when what is said by the founder of the religion, which was supposed to be taken metaphorically, is taken literally."

Well what I find with the more educated Christians who actually understand that the Bible is the myths, laws and ramblings of primitive religious fanatics, is that they often use this argument of "Oh this is supposed to be taken metaphorically and not literally." when they shamed by rather dire passages taken from the "Holy Book" of the religion they claim to represent, and anyway how would they know if the author meant the words to be taken literally or metaphorically.

In the age when the Bible was compiled, any illiterate, delusional religious fanatic could give a scribe a few coins and have it written in perfect Greek; and further among the professional scribes, documents could be quickly and easily written which could sell for their weight in silver or gold, if they read like some ancient document of religious secrets.

Further a quick reading through the utterly primitive and diabolical 613 Laws of Moses should be sufficient for any reader to understand that these were actual tribal laws; not parables or metaphors, and many of these laws had sentencing guidlines attached to them, some being execution.

bible_god_burn_kill_torture_unbelievers_teachings_of_jesus_evil_obey_the_law.jpg

It does not sound like the Mosaic Laws and the numerous edicts of Jesus are meant to be taken metaphorically to me; it just seems like a recipie for genocidal religious fanaticism, and this rather explains the centuries' long history of the Church.

There are so many gods and goddesses to choose from; Aphrodite, Pan and Cupid are all quite nice, quite human loving, for example; a person who chooses in the marketplace of gods, the genocidal war gods of the Bible and the Koran makes a free will decision; no longer is torture and death the punishment for heresy against the sadist god of the Bible; those who choose these have mostly been indoctrinated since birth, but in the modern Western world where there is the freedom to choose from myriads of deities, the Christians do not have the same excuse as out ancestors; they also have the choice to abandon their evil gods.

Lux


ReplyQuote
HG
 HG
(@hg)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 96
24/11/2012 6:00 am  
"gabriel7" wrote:
"HG" wrote:
John Cleese's excellent response:

"I love that comment, because I think the central problem of any religion is that the founders of religion are always extraordinarily intelligent people."

I rather admire John Cleese, but I think that he rather overestimates the intelligence of the "founders" of the world's major religions; the two major religions being those based on the Koran and the Bible.

Remember that John Cleese talked about the founders of religions, not followers of religions.

From your vehemently anti-Christian attitude I deduce you're living in the US.  Relax.  Once you get outside your country's borders, "it gets better," like Dan Savage says.

In the US Bible Belt, the requirements for being a Christian seem to include having a room temperature IQ.  Measured in Celsius.  But Christian churches in Scandinavia are having a discussion about what kind of ritual they should be using to bless the union of gay couples.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
24/11/2012 3:40 pm  
"HG" wrote:
Remember that John Cleese talked about the founders of religions, not followers of religions.

Yes HG, but as I have argued in the previous post, the alleged "founders" of Christianity and Islam (i.e., Jesus and Mohammad) are most likely "fictional" archetypes.

By the term "archetypes" I mean that most certainly two millenia ago, there were a number of "Monty Pythonesque" Messianic religious fanatics in Israel, whom the Jesus archetype is clearly based upon, and if we look to the Medina / Mecca region, well there were probably numerous illiterate, militant and genocidal tribal warlords and slave traders of the Mohammad ilk; nevertheless there is no "reliable" contemporaneous evidence from other scribes of the same historical period when these two mythical characters lived, which accounts for their existence.

Thus the "founders" of Christianity and Islam were most likely either the scribes who wrote the fables, or those who paid or commanded the scribes to write the fables, and with regard to who these persons were, it seems to me that the most likely origin of the New Testament was Constantine; not that he wrote the text of course, but it certainly would have to have to meet with his approval; Constantine was certainly not a Christian of course, as in addition to being head of state, he was the "Pontifex Maximus (i.e., the Pope)" of the Roman cult, which was certainly not "Christian," in the sense of some primitive foreign, executed martyr, such as the Israelite "Jesus" being Constantine's saviour god, but nevertheless Constantine seemed to desire a unified "saviour god" religion which was a syncretism of all the many superstitions in his empire, and which would appease the rabble.

From your vehemently anti-Christian attitude I deduce you're living in the US.  Relax.  Once you get outside your country's borders, "it gets better," like Dan Savage says.

I am Scottish by birth and I have lived most of my life in Bohemian London; though I did live and travel in America for about five years in the 1980's. Of the many states I travelled through, probably the most "godly" place I stayed in for about a month was Mississippi, and by "godly" I mean that it was one of the most vile and racist sewers of religious fanaticism on earth, where the attitudes of the Hollywood movie "Mississippi Burning" were still personified by many Americans of white European descent. If I lived in Bible Belt America instead of London, I think that I would be unable to exist publicly on the Internet, and would be too worried about my neighbour's burning crosses on my lawn, and I suspect I would probably vanish at some point and that my tortured, burnt and dismembered body would never be found. Fortunately, I no longer live in America, and I live the Vauxhall "gay village" in London.

In the US Bible Belt, the requirements for being a Christian seem to include having a room temperature IQ. Measured in Celsius. 

Yes HG. Most certainly. I have travelled the kingdoms of the earth, and the most godly and hateful places on earth that I have experienced have been rural (countryside) America and the rural regions of the Islamic world. Wherever "God" is worshipped there is Hell on earth. Thus my hatred of God.

But Christian churches in Scandinavia are having a discussion about what kind of ritual they should be using to bless the union of gay couples.

I live just a short walk away from the papal residence of one of God's living representatives on earth; the papal mansion of the Archbishop of Canterbury. He and his priests (I have had sex with at least one them) are most certainly not unaware of my existence, and I can assure you that much of his inner circle are gay Antichristians and that the Bible is an insult to their intelligence and that they are highly unlikely to ever lynch me and I suspect that they would probably prefer to fuck me on their altars, dressed as a nun.

🙂

Lux


ReplyQuote
amadan-De
(@amadan-de)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 686
24/11/2012 10:38 pm  

Heh. Interesting.

That'll be the 'episcopal' residence of the Archbish?  😉 'Papal' = pertaining to the Pope, different breed of prelate, best not to mix them they'll only argue.
(I'm assuming you are not making a sideways reference to Malaclypse the Youngers credo that we are all Popes).

Your apparent extreme antipathy to these so-called organised religions is perhaps revealing in light of your own line in the Transgender thread: "That which we fear, we automatically hate; that which we hate, we seek to destroy."
Don't be afraid - there is nothing there, unless you believe there is.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
25/11/2012 1:49 am  
"amadan-De" wrote:
Heh. Interesting.

That'll be the 'episcopal' residence of the Archbish?  😉 'Papal' = pertaining to the Pope, different breed of prelate, best not to mix them they'll only argue.
(I'm assuming you are not making a sideways reference to Malaclypse the Youngers credo that we are all Popes).

Your apparent extreme antipathy to these so-called organised religions is perhaps revealing in light of your own line in the Transgender thread: "That which we fear, we automatically hate; that which we hate, we seek to destroy."
Don't be afraid - there is nothing there, unless you believe there is.

I am afraid. Nevertheless, I continue. I continue to live and love.

I don't disbelieve in the existence of the subhuman and and malevolent daemon (spirit) whom the Christians and Muslims revere. I just choose infernal opposition: I just choose to love.

Love and Light.

"Love shall conquer"

L


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5304
25/11/2012 2:39 am  

Gabriel,

Moderator's Note

Please remove the website advertisement graphic from your signature: I think we've all seen it by now!

Paul

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
ptoner
(@ptoner)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2077
25/11/2012 3:56 am  

Salvation.


ReplyQuote
amadan-De
(@amadan-de)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 686
25/11/2012 9:52 pm  
"gabriel7" wrote:
I am afraid. Nevertheless, I continue. I continue to live and love.

I don't disbelieve in the existence of the subhuman and and malevolent daemon (spirit) whom the Christians and Muslims revere. I just choose infernal opposition: I just choose to love.

Oh well, if you believe then you give it power over you (at the very least psychologically).
We all continue, afraid or not so why carry the fear?
(I always preferred I am a Freud anyway).

Oh yeah, just noticed, so you say "Pan ..[is]..quite nice, quite human friendly"....  Hmmmmm.  I suspect Mr Machen and a shed-load of Greek shepherds would like a word in your shell-like.  (Not to say that the goat footed one is un-human friendly exactly, just that there's a much bigger picture going on.)


ReplyQuote
Share: