How do you feel about religious humor in Second Life?

[Scylla Rhiadra]

1 hour ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

 

The whole point of showcasing this kind of weirdness -- what Letterman used to call "Stupid Human Tricks" -- is in itself kind of nasty and mean-spirited, because the humour derives in part from showcasing the supposed ridiculousness and pointlessness of what these people are doing. And it does so by measuring their manias against a constructed "norm" to which the rest of us belong: "Hey, I find this ridiculous and funny! Just like everyone else who's laughing! I belong in the ranks of "sensible" and "normal" people too!" So, it is not merely holding people up to ridicule for its entertainment value, but also actively defining an "inside" of "cool kids" by exhibiting those whom it very showily excludes from that category.

I don't need to see people being humiliated publicly to be entertained. And as much to the point, I am deeply suspicious of any sort of exercise that works to make me and others feel smugly superior and complacent about how much I "belong." At its best, humour creates community through a shared enjoyment of incongruity: when we laugh together, we are recognizing our affinities, and we come closer together. But I don't like it much when the mechanism for showing who is "in" is exhibiting those whom we are supposed to identify as being "out."

That said . . . I kind of love Carson in this, because, although he's playing the game, he's also sweet and gentle and kind and courteous to her. I'm not particularly nostalgic for the humour of a half century ago, per se, but it does seem to me that American comedy and humour took a strange turn when Letterman, smart and funny as he is, took over from Carson became the new paradigm for late night talk show comedy. The humour suddenly became a whole lot meaner in spirit. And I'm sorry for that.

Edited May 24, 2020 by Scylla Rhiadra
Thanks to Selene for pointing out my error re. Letterman and Carson

[LittleMe Jewell]

13 minutes ago, Fauve Aeon said:

19 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

There is a church down the street with a big sign out front, usually spouting  nonsense such as "Adam & Eve, Not Adam & Steve", or "Homosexuals will know the wrath of God".  And of course, they believe that God talks to their denomination in all sorts of crazy ways.

And one day we had some tornado or strong downdraft rip through here and it damaged the sign, letters were hanging lopsided or gone.

I called the church and told them i thought God struck the sign because they were sending out hateful messages with it.   lol

It could be a fun thing to evaluate. Was this funny?   Was I being hurtful?  If I was being hurtful, was it okay?

For me, what they were doing was not funny or ok in the slightest but what you did was a form of trolling, maybe ‘justified’ by the fact that what they were doing was not ok in the first place? Two wrongs and all...you know how that goes...

unless the sign was a public danger in its damaged state, you were ‘reporting’ it just to create your opportunity to give them tit for tat, right? In that case, I don’t like their MO but I don’t think yours was ok or justified either. For me it says something about me how I respond and reply, if even when I disagree and am exasperated if I can manage civility, an explanation, keeping my cool or as my grandma would have said, remain couth. I don’t always manage it.

^^ This

[Gatogateau]

9 minutes ago, Selene Gregoire said:

One thing that hasn't been touched on yet is the creative mind and how those who have creative talent can see what those who don't have creative talent or very little, can't. Those who are creative tend to use their "imaginations" more than others so they will see humor in something a "non-creative" person can't see.

I agree that "creatives" often process the world differently. But then you run into the problem of defining creatives, and I know for a fact that people will/can pop up and say "everyone who is functioning in the normal range, is creative in some way." I know this because I've heard it a lot.

You get, what I would call full blown creatives, people who from day one were drawing, acting, writing... whatever. They know of no other way to be.

Then there are what I would call the full blown practicals. People who from day one were analyzing, figuring, spreadsheeting... whatever.

I've lived with both. (And yes, of course, ffs, there are the people who fall into some gray area. Most people, I'd wager, lean more toward one side or the other.)

Then there are some people, like me, who are a frustrating 50/50 blend of the creative and the practical. You'd think that would be a blessing, and sometimes it is, but it is also a curse.

So... the tl:dr point to my rambling is that while creatives vs practicals certainly process their worlds differently, the distinction really doesn't matter because it falls down to everyone is one of these.

It still boils down to "everyone processes differently"  and that includes humor. We still all need (?) to process 2+2 =4 in the same way, or chaos ensues, but "did you hear the one about the..." not so much.

[Luna Bliss]

6 minutes ago, Dano Seale said:

As for the "Jesus toast" stuff?...not funny in the least! 

Then again we Brit's

I would guess, for the most part, that those who find the 'trust the toast' phenomenon the most funny are those who must live among evangelicals who believe they have a hotline to god, and that god talks to them, and therefor we should conform to their beliefs lest we go to hell!

[Madelaine McMasters]

18 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

The whole point of showcasing this kind of weirdness -- what Letterman used to call "Stupid Human Tricks" -- is in itself kind of nasty and mean-spirited, because the humour derives in part from showcasing the supposed ridiculousness and pointlessness of what these people are doing. And it does so by measuring their manias against a constructed "norm" to which the rest of us belong: "Hey, I find this ridiculous and funny! Just like everyone else who's laughing! I belong in the ranks of "sensible" and "normal" people too!" So, it is not merely holding people up to ridicule for its entertainment value, but also actively defining an "inside" of "cool kids" by exhibiting those whom it very showily excludes from that category.

I don't need to see people being humiliated publicly to be entertained. And as much to the point, I am deeply suspicious of any sort of exercise that works to make me and others feel smugly superior and complacent about how much I "belong." At its best, humour creates community through a shared enjoyment of incongruity: when we laugh together, we are recognizing our affinities, and we come closer together. But I don't like it much when the mechanism for showing who is "in" is exhibiting those whom we are supposed to identify as being "out."

That said . . . I kind of love Carson in this, because, although he's playing the game, he's also sweet and gentle and kind and courteous to her. I'm not particularly nostalgic for the humour of a half century ago, per se, but it does seem to me that American comedy and humour took a strange turn when Letterman, smart and funny as he is, took over from Carson. The humour suddenly became a whole lot meaner in spirit. And I'm sorry for that.

I dislike Letterman and Seinfeld for the reason you state. I also dislike the late shows that do "man on the street" interviews showing only the clips that reveal ignorance. You never see the person who makes the questioner look like a fool, and you know that happens.

In this clip, I don't think Carson is making fun of that woman's passion for finding patterns so much as going for the juxtaposition of museum worthy potato chips. There hasn't been a time in my life where someone expressed an interest in something weird and I haven't felt the desire to have fun with them over it and reveal my own weird interests. Weirdness is everywhere and I relish it.

That is, I hope, a recognizable trait in my humor. I target me more than anyone else.

Edited May 24, 2020 by Madelaine McMasters
Changed "outsized" to "weird" to align the word more with the idea.

[Fauve Aeon]

13 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

No, I was, in my own humorous way of entertaining myself that boring day after the storm, telling them that God speaks to others too. And my "god" was telling me that was a hateful sign.

I also think it was a hateful sign. If someone’s religion is against homosexuality, I’d advise them, in following it, to refrain from homosexuality. 😉 But to condemn others publicly with hate speech on a sign for not following their religious belief, I do consider a hateful act. So I agree with that much. Your reaction however probably did not mend anything at all in their hatred so it just seems self-serving, not in any way effective, educational or inviting dialogue. So I can’t say I’m a fan of your reaction because I don’t find that kind of opportunistic sniping amusing regardless of the circumstances. 

[Scylla Rhiadra]

3 minutes ago, Dano Seale said:

Then again we Brit's often find Americans notorious for finding things side splittingly hilarious, which to us is about as funny as going on a date with Seicher and Scylla and letting them choose which movie we go see!  😵  (That's just a joke ladies ok!).

/me raises an eyebrow.

You might be surprised, sweetie.

Besides, I was raised, by an English mother, on the humour of Beyond the Fringe, The Goonies, Monty Python, Spike Milligan, Peter Sellers, and old Pinewood Studios comedies. Even now, I'll take Mitchell and Webb over most American comics. You might find that our senses of humour are closer than you think.

Speaking of which, this seems apposite:

 

[Gatogateau]

5 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

The whole point of showcasing this kind of weirdness -- what Letterman used to call "Stupid Human Tricks" -- is in itself kind of nasty and mean-spirited, because the humour derives in part from showcasing the supposed ridiculousness and pointlessness of what these people are doing. And it does so by measuring their manias against a constructed "norm" to which the rest of us belong: "Hey, I find this ridiculous and funny! Just like everyone else who's laughing! I belong in the ranks of "sensible" and "normal" people too!" So, it is not merely holding people up to ridicule for its entertainment value, but also actively defining an "inside" of "cool kids" by exhibiting those whom it very showily excludes from that category.

I don't need to see people being humiliated publicly to be entertained. And as much to the point, I am deeply suspicious of any sort of exercise that works to make me and others feel smugly superior and complacent about how much I "belong." At its best, humour creates community through a shared enjoyment of incongruity: when we laugh together, we are recognizing our affinities, and we come closer together. But I don't like it much when the mechanism for showing who is "in" is exhibiting those whom we are supposed to identify as being "out."

That said . . . I kind of love Carson in this, because, although he's playing the game, he's also sweet and gentle and kind and courteous to her. I'm not particularly nostalgic for the humour of a half century ago, per se, but it does seem to me that American comedy and humour took a strange turn when Letterman, smart and funny as he is, took over from Carson. The humour suddenly became a whole lot meaner in spirit. And I'm sorry for that.

:::sighs and puts on some Bruce Cockburn to get into the Canadian frame of mind:::

I so want to disagree with you, and I do. But I don't. That awful continuum of mean intent on one end and innocent on the other. I can't watch shows like Hoarders because it just makes me cringe. Sure I cringe, and can get a little "train wreck watching" on the piles of junk (plus feel less guilty about my own questionable housekeeping skills/desires); but ultimately I cannot watch because it makes me very uneasy watching obvious pain and mental illness. That isn't entertainment for me. I worry about the folks who think it is, but it is a free country and obviously many people do like this sort of thing, and may not even be aware of the points you were making above about marginalizing the "other" to justify ourselves.

Obviously I have fallen into the wallowing in maple leaves trap... le horreur. 

BUT to save myself, it is interesting that while I certainly see how you think the Carson clip was one of those making-fun-of-people things, I didn't! I truly watched that in a different way. I watched it as, "Wow, that's interesting, tell me more." I was fascinated by the chips and amused by that. I wondered, "What makes someone collect chips?" And of course I thought "That's just weird" but that isn't what made it funny. The oddness of all of it did make it funny for me. Carson's "innocent" goof of making a loud potato chip noise was hilarious, as was her reaction.

I'm kind of with you on the meaner isn't funny... unless it is a target I don't like, such as bigots, trolls, Trump (wait, that's redundant...) Then GO FOR IT! I also don't consider such groups as marginalized. However, I love irreverent, sarcastic, dark, off-limits, hell just about anything humor. Pretty much everything is fair game, if done well. There are just bad jokes out there, not that the topic is bad, just the craft isn't there. There's a recently scandalized comedian that I used to think was very funny (and still think his old stuff is). Then he tried to make a comeback and honestly, I was reluctantly willing to listen and... his stuff just wasn't funny. It wasn't the subject, it was the joke itself and the delivery that just fell flat and bitter.

zomg. I've typed way too much Deep Thoughts this morning.

I think now is the time for me to go chase an imaginary bug up the wall for an hour and then nap. (I'm not talking about the avatar!)

[FairreLilette]

45 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

There is a church down the street with a big sign out front, usually spouting  nonsense such as "Adam & Eve, Not Adam & Steve", or "Homosexuals will know the wrath of God".  And of course, they believe that God talks to their denomination in all sorts of crazy ways.

And one day we had some tornado or strong downdraft rip through here and it damaged the sign, letters were hanging lopsided or gone.

I called the church and told them i thought God struck the sign because they were sending out hateful messages with it.   lol

It could be a fun thing to evaluate. Was this funny?   Was I being hurtful?  If I was being hurtful, was it okay?

It was being hurtful.  And Jesus never said that, the Epistles of Paul which are after The Gospels say that regarding homesexuals and fornicators whom are heterosexual, I'd gather?  I don't follow the epistles of Paul.  For one thing, Jesus struck down the law of Moses in the OT and said love is fulfillment of the law, and THEN 100 years after Jesus' death, Paul comes along and writes another bunch of stupid laws and also in the Epistles of Paul, Paul claimed he was the 13th apostle.  I don't agree with Puritanical Church of England stuff that is modern day church in America still.  It's seen it's day not to mention it has nothing to do with Jesus period and Jesus never said any of those things Paul says.    

Edited May 24, 2020 by FairreLilette

[Selene Gregoire]

24 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

The whole point of showcasing this kind of weirdness -- what Letterman used to call "Stupid Human Tricks" -- is in itself kind of nasty and mean-spirited, because the humour derives in part from showcasing the supposed ridiculousness and pointlessness of what these people are doing. And it does so by measuring their manias against a constructed "norm" to which the rest of us belong: "Hey, I find this ridiculous and funny! Just like everyone else who's laughing! I belong in the ranks of "sensible" and "normal" people too!" So, it is not merely holding people up to ridicule for its entertainment value, but also actively defining an "inside" of "cool kids" by exhibiting those whom it very showily excludes from that category.

I don't need to see people being humiliated publicly to be entertained. And as much to the point, I am deeply suspicious of any sort of exercise that works to make me and others feel smugly superior and complacent about how much I "belong." At its best, humour creates community through a shared enjoyment of incongruity: when we laugh together, we are recognizing our affinities, and we come closer together. But I don't like it much when the mechanism for showing who is "in" is exhibiting those whom we are supposed to identify as being "out."

That said . . . I kind of love Carson in this, because, although he's playing the game, he's also sweet and gentle and kind and courteous to her. I'm not particularly nostalgic for the humour of a half century ago, per se, but it does seem to me that American comedy and humour took a strange turn when Letterman, smart and funny as he is, took over from Carson. The humour suddenly became a whole lot meaner in spirit. And I'm sorry for that.

Letterman? Don't you mean Jay Leno? Letterman had his own show on a different network.

[Gatogateau]

24 minutes ago, Dano Seale said:

Then again we Brit's often find Americans notorious for finding things side splittingly hilarious, which to us is about as funny as going on a date with Seicher and Scylla and letting them choose which movie we go see!  😵  (That's just a joke ladies ok!).

:::sees the bait mouse and POUNCES!:::

I dunno, I think that sounds like it could be hilarious, among other things :::purrs  knowingly at Mistress Scylla::: But I'm only going if I get to sit next to (on) Scylla and Dano sits in the row in front of us.

[kiramanell]

1 hour ago, Luna Bliss said:

Earlier you spoke of the 4 stages of spirituality. I would imagine those who 'trust the toast' are in Stage 1 & 2. What do you think?

 

Not sure if serious, but only in Stage 2 (Organized Religion), actually.  Stage 1 ist just the Chaos level (where ppl believe nothing).

Btw, I forget to mention, the other day, Stage 1 and 3 look, outwardly, very much alike (someone not believing vs. someone having departed Stage 2). As do Stage 2 and 4 (Oganized Religion vs. people having renewed their relationship with God, after Stage 3, but this time, on their own terms). Only outwardly, really, as the differnces are actually quite vast.

N.B. The toast thing has nothing to do with religion, actually. It's essentially no different from ppl swearing they saw Elvis at the mall. It's funny, simply because of the absurdity of it. Okay, nobody really believed Fairre actually appeared in the image of that toast I posted; but why would they do so for Jesus? What makes this kind of stuff funny (when ppl believe it) is how gullible ppl can be, and the sincerity with which believe what they saw, against comon sense. A little self-relativism, especially in religion, like I said earlier, is a healthy thing.

[Luna Bliss]

2 minutes ago, Fauve Aeon said:

23 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

No, I was, in my own humorous way of entertaining myself that boring day after the storm, telling them that God speaks to others too. And my "god" was telling me that was a hateful sign.

I also think it was a hateful sign. If someone’s religion is against homosexuality, I’d advise them, in following it, to refrain from homosexuality. 😉 But to condemn others publicly with hate speech on a sign for not following their religious belief, I do consider a hateful act. So I agree with that much. Your reaction however probably did not mend anything at all in their hatred so it just seems self-serving, not in any way effective, educational or inviting dialogue. So I can’t say I’m a fan of your reaction because I don’t find that kind of opportunistic sniping amusing regardless of the circumstances. 

lol I've done as much, told a few people if they don't believe in gay marriage not to marry a gay person!

If a church is spouting hate on a public sign though, confronting them in a humorous way is not an act of hate. And perhaps it did not mend anything with that office person or minister who took my call, but possibly it made them think.  I found it interesting that I didn't see these types of messages on their sign anymore and I like to think I may have contributed to that.

Anyway, I prefer your way of confronting others who are harming others, "inviting dialogue", as you say.  But I'm afraid this does not work with most of the evangelicals in my neck of the woods, or a ways from me where an abortion doctor was actually murdered.  For them, it's "my way or the highway". So best to drop a funny line, nothing too confrontational, and hope it just might make somebody think.

[Fauve Aeon]

17 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

The whole point of showcasing this kind of weirdness -- what Letterman used to call "Stupid Human Tricks" -- is in itself kind of nasty and mean-spirited, because the humour derives in part from showcasing the supposed ridiculousness and pointlessness of what these people are doing. And it does so by measuring their manias against a constructed "norm" to which the rest of us belong: "Hey, I find this ridiculous and funny! Just like everyone else who's laughing! I belong in the ranks of "sensible" and "normal" people too!" So, it is not merely holding people up to ridicule for its entertainment value, but also actively defining an "inside" of "cool kids" by exhibiting those whom it very showily excludes from that category.

I don't need to see people being humiliated publicly to be entertained. And as much to the point, I am deeply suspicious of any sort of exercise that works to make me and others feel smugly superior and complacent about how much I "belong." At its best, humour creates community through a shared enjoyment of incongruity: when we laugh together, we are recognizing our affinities, and we come closer together. But I don't like it much when the mechanism for showing who is "in" is exhibiting those whom we are supposed to identify as being "out."

That said . . . I kind of love Carson in this, because, although he's playing the game, he's also sweet and gentle and kind and courteous to her. I'm not particularly nostalgic for the humour of a half century ago, per se, but it does seem to me that American comedy and humour took a strange turn when Letterman, smart and funny as he is, took over from Carson. The humour suddenly became a whole lot meaner in spirit. And I'm sorry for that.

I think both Carson and Letterman have a deep abiding curiosity for human weirdness and holding things up for an audience to decide about, with admittedly, some jokes and pokes from them as a kind of impromptu peanut gallery. That said, people agree to be on these shows, knowing full well what they are getting into, are paid for their appearance and often visit a second time. So who’s to say, really? Oddly, I like both of them but do not like Seinfeld (or Jason Alexander/George Constanta) and I can’t even really say why off the top of my head. I watched the Seinfeld show for Kramer and Elaine. 🤣 My humorous adulation belongs to Juuuuuudy Tenuta though. and a bit to vintage Margaret Cho bits about her mom. And Judy is guilty of the religious humor, high ridicule as sin made into Very campy art. Not even sorry for this. My favorite bits are not actually her Pope material but I did laugh (and laugh and laugh). 

 

 

[Luna Bliss]

8 minutes ago, FairreLilette said:

It was being hurtful.  And Jesus never said that

Oh Fairre, if I could only afford to come and live in sunny California  

 

[Gatogateau]

14 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

 

 

The  funny thing is (well one of them) is he's right! A "friendly place" is a recent invention and his castigation of the "spiritual" would have been right spot on in other centuries.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

4 minutes ago, Gatogateau said:

I'm kind of with you on the meaner isn't funny... unless it is a target I don't like, such as bigots, trolls, Trump (wait, that's redundant...) Then GO FOR IT! I also don't consider such groups as marginalized.

Oh, satire, which can use humour, but isn't quite the same thing, can be a really useful tool, especially when directed against those in power. It's "illegitimate" in the sense that is distorts and caricatures in order to make the subject's faults grotesquely obvious (like a visual caricature of someone's big nose, expanded to huge proportions), but it also in that way clarifies what it is attacking, and helps us see it more clearly, precisely by distorting and exaggerating it.

Orwar referenced Tim Minchin earlier in this thread, and he's been running through the back of my mind throughout this entire conversation. Minchin makes me profoundly uncomfortable for all sorts of reasons, one of which is frankly that he also satirizes things that I tend to hold at least as somewhat sacrosanct, but he's brilliant, and funny, and he performs a vital service.

This is a version of his "The Pope Song." I'm only going to link to it, because it is likely to be deeply offensive to some people. Please don't click on the link if you are likely to be upset by an absolutely savage and obscene satire on the response of the Catholic church to the sexual abuse scandals that have whirled around it.

The nastiness of this is, to my mind, justified by the subject. As brutal and, frankly, unfair as this satire is, the target is vastly more horrifying.

https://youtu.be/vjJ_b8isMzc

 

[Nalates Urriah]

28 minutes ago, Gatogateau said:

While your first paragraph is true for some, I am not sure where you get your figures for stating it is "very few."

For any topic it is difficult to know what is going to offend whom.

As to the last paragraph, comedians joke about both the ways people fall short and about the actual concepts and beliefs of a religion. Have you never heard a comedian riff about, say, Scientology?

Fair question. It is my empirical experience and observation of people and 'man in the street' type interviews. I could have been more accurate writing 'in my experience' to preface it. But, I generally consider that to be implied. It might be confirmation bias at work. But, do you have anything beyond your experience to say it isn't 'very few'?

I have heard riffs on Scientology and other belief systems. They pretty much substantiate my first point that few know what they are talking about when it comes to belief systems, religious or political. Yet, they are such a small part of the humour available I'll stick with my statement.

</response>

Humor is whatever makes one laugh. It may be unkind to someone or some group and often is. Entertainment is whatever we find entertaining. It can violent, humorous, dramatic, uplifting, depressing... each to his own. You can try to tell people what is and isn't proper or good... many even try shaming others to their viewpoint. But, that is our opinion we are pushing.

Then thinkers ask why some get to force their opinion on others.

[Luna Bliss]

23 minutes ago, kiramanell said:

1 hour ago, Luna Bliss said:

Earlier you spoke of the 4 stages of spirituality. I would imagine those who 'trust the toast' are in Stage 1 & 2. What do you think?

 

Not sure if serious, but only in Stage 2 (Organized Religion), actually.  Stage 1 ist just the Chaos level (where ppl believe nothing).

Btw, I forget to mention, the other day, Stage 1 and 3 look, outwardly, very much alike (someone not believing vs. someone having departed Stage 2). As do Stage 2 and 4 (Oganized Religion vs. people having renewed their relationship with God, after Stage 3, but this time, on their own terms). Only outwardly, really, as the differnces are actually quite vast.

N.B. The toast thing has nothing to do with religion, actually. It's essentially no different from ppl swearing they saw Elvis at the mall. It's funny, simply because of the absurdity of it. Okay, nobody really believed Fairre actually appeared in the image of that toast I posted; but why would they do so for Jesus? What makes this kind of stuff funny (when ppl believe it) is how gullible ppl can be, and the sincerity with which believe what they saw, against comon sense. A little self-relativism, especially in religion, like I said earlier, is a healthy thing.

Did you remember the Psychiatrist who came up with this theory yet?

I'll have to disagree with your statement that the toast thing has nothing to do with religion, though for some it doesn't. For many (usually evangelicals) these types of signs mean God is speaking to them personally.  The face in the toast is God saying "hello!" to them because their faith is strong.They believe God sends miracles to them if they pray hard enough. Or that God will prevent them from dying if they are bitten by a snake in one of their snake ceremonies.  Basically, common to it all, is the belief that they have an exceptional ability to effect God and make God do their bidding.

We truly might have the ability to affect the Universe in ways unknown to us at this point in time, I don't doubt it, but I'm sure most of these people do not have this ability. It's like they're drunk on power, perhaps exhibiting behaviors compatible with Stage 2?

Edited May 24, 2020 by Luna Bliss

[Gatogateau]

7 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

The nastiness of this is, to my mind, justified by the subject. As brutal and, frankly, unfair as this satire is, the target is vastly more horrifying.

https://youtu.be/vjJ_b8isMzc

In the safety of my own blog I could write pages and pages about this song, but not here. Let's just say "agree." Also to anyone else who may be prone to clicking the link, I found it useful to decrease the playrate in order to better hear the lyrics.

[Nalates Urriah]

19 minutes ago, FairreLilette said:

It was being hurtful.  And Jesus never said that, the Epistles of Paul which are after The Gospels say that regarding homesexuals and fornicators whom are heterosexual, I'd gather?  I don't follow the epistles of Paul.  For one thing, Jesus struck down the law of Moses in the OT and said love is fulfillment of the law, and THEN 100 years after Jesus' death, Paul comes along and writes another bunch of stupid laws and also in the Epistles of Paul, Paul claimed he was the 13th apostle.  I don't agree with Puritanical Church of England stuff that is modern day church in America still.  It's seen it's day not to mention it has nothing to do with Jesus period and Jesus never said any of those things Paul says.    

@Gatogateau 😂 Does the above start to prove my point? Fairre is absolutely clueless and self contradictory.

[Dano Seale]

24 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

/me raises an eyebrow.

You might be surprised, sweetie.

The reference to yourself and Seicher was more about a chosen film to see rather than the "humour" part. As two refined, intellectuals, I'd expect it to be Bong Joon Ho's (or whatever he's called!) "Parasite",.....rather than my less refined choice of "anything with Arnold in it!"  😆
 

 

21 minutes ago, Gatogateau said:

I dunno, I think that sounds like it could be hilarious, among other things :::purrs  knowingly at Mistress Scylla::: But I'm only going if I get to sit next to (on) Scylla and Dano sits in the row in front of us.

Yeah, never gonna happen. I prefer to see which direction my future scars are coming from tyvm!

[Gatogateau]

1 minute ago, Nalates Urriah said:

@Gatogateau 😂 Does the above start to prove my point? Fairre is absolutely clueless and self contradictory.

I never stated that you were wrong that some people are clueless about a lot of things regarding theirs and others' religions. I questioned the anecdotal nature regarding the numbers.  I understood your point. No, throwing another anecdotal example onto the pile doesn't prove the numbers.

[FairreLilette]

1 minute ago, Nalates Urriah said:

@Gatogateau 😂 Does the above start to prove my point? Fairre is absolutely clueless and self contradictory.

Prove your point then because I said Jesus said to love one another and that was all I needed to know and I also said I don't believe in the Bible.  It was written by man for man.  The Gospel message was if you believe you are saved to put it basically plus Jesus striking down the law of Moses.  Now are you asking 'do I believe in the Gospels as though not written by men'?  The Gospel's were written by men but I don't think them as manipulated nor twisted as the rest of the Bible which in regards to The Epistles of Paul are actually a collection of letters.

As far as humor should it hurt others?  I still pretty much think as far as SL...keep it on your own parcel.  As far as RL, I think no...I don't think humor that is hurtful is good nor even funny.    

[Scylla Rhiadra]

27 minutes ago, Selene Gregoire said:

Letterman? Don't you mean Jay Leno? Letterman had his own show on a different network.

You're right, of course. Brain fart. But more generally, I just meant that Letterman became the standard "measurement" of late night talk show comedy, replacing Carson in that sense, at least.