Jump to content

How do you feel about religious humor in Second Life?


You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 116 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
On 5/22/2020 at 8:44 PM, Gopi Passiflora said:

The type of humor I'm talking about is the more subtle light-hearted stuff, nothing too offensive.

Well.. that problem of offense already started from it's very beginnings. I just cannot get my head around this one, but laughing about it.

Imagine a conversation between 2 known people : "You know .. I'm pregnant .. and it's not yours .. but you will never guess who the father of this baby is. Just hear me out on this."

Either Josef is not only the worlds greatest, but also the most gullible man of men or time's  most funniest fabrication along with the rest of the story.

Edited by TDD123
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 485
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Humour and satire are entirely legitimate, if often misused and abused, tools to critique something that is deserving of criticism. Religion doesn't get a free pass: where it merits criticism, it shou

Posted Images

1 minute ago, kiramanell said:

 

That may actually be true, although society probably wouldn't label them all as such. But when there's an overwhelming mount of scientific evidence and logic stacked against you, yet you want to believe something else nonetheless (typically something which may endanger you or others), and you appear to have lost a sound/sane way of reasoning, then 'insane' is as good a term as any other.

Many of them do have sound and logical and rational facts to why they think as they do. Just because you dont want to accept it or try to invalidate it, doesn't make it any less true for them. And by acting in the manner they do, does not make them insane by any means or definition of the word.

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, FairreLilette said:

It's true.  Jesus never said homosexuals nor fornicators cannot get into the Kingdom of God.  The Gospels say: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

So, if I did, who I am to say someone cannot believe in the Epistles of Paul wherein most of them start, I, Paul, write this letter.  Paul is a collection of letters.  

Paul's letters in some form or other have always been Christian canon, and likely predate the Gospels. If you want to disregard everything in them because Jesus didn't say it too, go ahead. Don't be surprised when very few people take you seriously.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Okay, boys and girls, not flouncing, but time for me to leave this thread. I have constantly been telling myself (and others, actually) that these religious threads tend to end very badly. And it did. So, time to heed my own words, and step back. Have fun! (or not fun, as the case may be). 

Edited by kiramanell
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

I only hope you don't feel fine about expelling gas in a crowded elevator and decide you are teaching others to deal with their pain.

If it happens it happens. perhaps they will learn not to get into a crowed elevator and just wait for a more empty one the next time around. and provide enough extra time in their schedule to do so and not be rushing around everywhere all the time which is unneeded or waiting until the last moment to do something. a few extra minutes cannot hurt unless your planned your time so poorly that it might.

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Nalates Urriah said:

Is harmful humor good? Bad? Actually harming others... is seldom a good thing. But even 'harm' has its beneficial uses. 

I haven't had a chance to read the last 4 or 5 pages yet and won't until later.  I have to clean now.  

But, me just rambling...I don't think we can change the puritanical Christian Church of England America by being hurtful.  I don't think it will do a darn thing to help what is run basically with a lot of money.  Churches are a business and quite wealthy.  Does the truth even stand a chance against all that money and it's in our political system too.   I don't think the Constitution was written by Christians though in regards to the pursuit of happiness, however.  Thankfully, we have that at least so we aren't overrun by the church of England stuff.  

Also, since I cannot know every joke, I have to generalize about hurt in humor.  And, those Christian church signs that Luna has shown is just horrible and it's not around where I live.  I don't think it's allowed here p e r i o d.  The signs here say: everyone come on in.  But, I don't like organized religion for reasons I've talked about in this thread.  I feel God can be with me anywhere.  

But from what I've seen of low brow hurting each other stuff ala The Three Stooges poking each other in the eye or hitting each other with a frying pan it's just not funny.  Some may go for it, other's not.  But, in a general sense, I don't find it worthwhile nor humorous.  I don't like hitting humor where it's actual hitting like a lot of cartoons are.  I don't like cliche anything where it's too overdone.  I don't like the saccharine Christian stuff that comes through on FB either that is just a cliche.   

Some of this forum has really funny original stuff on it that is way better than any religious humor could be, probably because it's not so drenched in cliches.  

I also had a post about how I thought the sim owners might take a Jesus avatar and that first of all we are guests and second of all they have guests.  I don't think the sim owners would appreciate it because of their guests but this thread is going so fast I don't even know if anyone is even really reading what I'm writing as there is so much else being written right now.  

@Luna Bliss well, let's create a California sim.  I want to live in central California too but can't right now.  lol

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/22/2020 at 7:44 PM, Gopi Passiflora said:

The type of humor I'm talking about is the more subtle light-hearted stuff, nothing too offensive.

The reason why I ask is I'm thinking about wearing a Jesus avatar but just talk using my real personality and being witty if necessary.

Edit: After some thought, I'm not going to proceed with this after all.

Not offended in the slightest. But that's just me. I think, if there was a god, he/it, is playing the funniest "joke" on all of us right now with the covid malarkey. 

And that, for what it is worth, is my two penny worth.

My ex-boyfriend went through a phase of looking like (apparently) what Jesus Christ looked like. Even his bath water parted for him!

  • Like 2
  • Haha 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, Lyssa Greymoon said:

Paul's letters in some form or other have always been Christian canon, and likely predate the Gospels. If you want to disregard everything in them because Jesus didn't say it too, go ahead. Don't be surprised when very few people take you seriously.

The Epistles or Letters of Paul do not pre-date the Gospels.  Can you back that up?   These are letters of instructions to what are considered the first early Christian churches after Christ was crucified.  

What are the letters of Paul in order?
Seven letters (with consensus dates) considered genuine by most scholars:
  • First Thessalonians (c. 50 AD)
  • Galatians (c. ...
  • First Corinthians (c. 53–54)
  • Philippians (c. ...
  • Philemon (c. ...
  • Second Corinthians (c. 55–56)
  • Romans (c.
Edited by FairreLilette
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, FairreLilette said:

The Epistles or Letters of Paul do not pre-date the Gospels.  Can you back that up?  

Not predating in originals, but there are none of those, are there ? I think what Lyssa means is that there are known COPIES of Paul's letters that are older than copies of the canon.

Edited by TDD123
Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, kiramanell said:

I think you'll be hard-pressed to find anyone thinking it's cool to make fun of mentally disabled people, or those afflicted with serious mental illnesses, like those hoarders Seicher mentioned. That's not fun. But what about ppl saying they sweated Elvis thru their T-shirt? See, this is where it gets tricky. Because there's a flip-side to endlessly 'respecting' what ppl believe, namely that enabling these people doesn't really help them per se. My mom had a lady friend once, who suddenly believed in goblins. No kidding. She said she saw them, and was talking to them on a regular basis. And she got really mad when ppl dared to tell her goblins don't exist. That woman obviously was delusional, and needed someone to pull her out, not push her further in.

And that's really where I stand on the toast thing. I do not think it particularly healthy to not poke a little fun of it. I'm not one to sincerely say "Uh-huh, yes, that's really Jesus!" Rather, a wee humor, to me, is a good way to try and snap them out of it a bit. Like "C'mon, you gotta be kidding me, right?! Obviously that's just a coincidence."

There's something else ppl do, like "I'm sure it feels very real to you." I never do that either, and find such pseudo-validation abhorrent, really. I do not believe Jesus is in that toast, nor that Elvis appeared in that guy's T-shirt. And I do not think saying so makes me mean-spirited. Or for even saying I can't take that stuff seriously. I'm that gal who will tell the Empress she's not wearing any clothes, and the anti-vaxxers they're insane.

I think maybe we might agree on the value in separating the sin from the sinner (to use an appropriate metaphor for this thread!) here?

Characterizing stupidity as stupidity is one thing, but moving from that to an attack upon the person committing said stupidity is quite another.

Mostly, people who do or believe stupid things do so for a reason. They aren't very clever, perhaps, or they were brought up in a particular way, or they possess character or intellectual flaws that have distinct pathologies. Ridiculing someone for being stupid is frankly like ridiculing someone for being ugly, or disabled: it is what they cannot help. No one actually "chooses" to be stupid, even if they do chose to do stupid things. But that choice is, of course, a function of their incapacity.

I don't find stupidity offensive at all. I have met really not-very-bright people whom I adore, because they are also sweet or kind. What is offensive are the actions, beliefs, and attitudes that an incapacity to understand or empathize causes: those are the proper target, because it is those, rather than the disabilities of the person performing them, that are dangerous and undesirable.

So yes, don't "enable." But be a bit surgical and strategic in what it is that you target instead?

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, FairreLilette said:

The Epistles or Letters of Paul do not pre-date the Gospels.  Can you back that up?  

It’s generally accepted among Biblical scholars that Mark was the earliest Gospel and was written after the sack of Jerusalem in 70CE. It’s also generally accepted that Paul was executed under Nero, who was murdered in 68CE.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, TDD123 said:

Not predating in originals, but there are none of those, are there ? I think what Lyssa means is that there are known COPIES of Paul's letters that are older than copies of the canon.

Yeah but it's all about the early churches and were letters of instructions to the first Christian churches so what do I need to spend time over archaeology right now for?  

Edited by FairreLilette
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, TDD123 said:

Not predating in originals, but there are none of those, are there ? I think what Lyssa means is that there are known COPIES of Paul's letters that are older than copies of the canon.

No, I mean Paul’s epistles were written before the canonical Gospels. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Lyssa Greymoon said:

No, I mean Paul’s epistles were written before the canonical Gospels. 

Noted. Although the problem over originals and copies remains.

It remains even to be seen if originals were ever written at all. So far there's no proof whatsoever. I doubt it will arrive in time as well.

But this is me the atheist speaking.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
50 minutes ago, Lyssa Greymoon said:

No, I mean Paul’s epistles were written before the canonical Gospels. 

Why would that be if Christianity didn't even exist yet as it's letters of instructions as to how the first Christian churches should act/behave/be controlled, however you want to put it?

And, since, I wasn't there thousands of years ago...I'm not going down the archaeology route with you here when you obviously don't even know what The Letters of Paul say.  The Letters of Paul are also known as The Epistles of Paul and also The Pauline Scriptures, they are all about Christianity and the first Christian churches and as Paul says for instruction (regarding Christianity) since Paul's epiphany on the road to Damascus wherein he claims the resurrected Jesus blinded him because he said Jesus said Saul was persecuting him, Jesus.  Saul was a Pharisee who then became Paul after his epiphany and then wrote the letters of instructions to the first Christian churches known as The Epistles of Paul plus the other names.  But, they are actually a collection of Paul's letters.  They even say so...they start out...I, Paul, write this letter...blah, blah, blah.  Paul was not one of the original 12 Apostles in the Gospels.  

 

 

Edited by FairreLilette
Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, kiramanell said:

 

No, they're insane. Wity and caring, possibly (but irrelevant); but definitely, literally insane: "in a state of mind which prevents normal perception, behaviour, or social interaction."

 

40 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

I believe you are wrong. They're worried, perhaps frightened, but hardly insane. The harder you argue your point with me, the more credibility you'll lose, with me and others.

 

I sort of agree, in part, with both of you. Wilful ignorance, is either a type of mental illness or a symptom of one. So you might call that "insane" if you're stretching a point. Plain old ignorance is something else. Lack of education, something else. To blatantly be a, for example, flat-Earther today is wilful ignorance, and, well, nuts.

I think 99% (totally made up number) of anti-vaxxers are wilfully ignorant and therefore nuts.

I also think to label the whole group of anti-vaxxers as intelligent and witty and kind and caring is a bit much. Also totally anecdotal, but my experience with these folks, both in RL and more on the Internet, is most of these folks have zero senses of humor, zero empathy, and since they are wilfully ignorant their intelligence is questionable.

All of that aside, however, telling these folks, "You're nuts!" is like saying here "I think people should stop posting Taylor Swift gifs" in that both statements will make the target audience dig in more to their stance.  After going 50 rounds with them, beating your head against the wall, as they deny anything scientific contrary to their beliefs, sure, it is human to throw up your hands, yell loudly, "YOU'RE NUTS!" and stomp off for your favorite beverage. If you're a wild-eyed optimist, and your intent is to have a sincere dialogue, then yeah, starting out with "you're nuts" probably isn't the best strategy. In my experience, the other party is rarely interested in a sincere dialogue.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, FairreLilette said:

I haven't had a chance to read the last 4 or 5 pages yet and won't until later.  I have to clean now.  

But, me just rambling...

_———————————_

((endlessly...))

 

I’m out too, when someone thinks is ok to not only repeat themselves blue but admittedly disregard other posters in favor of hammering on with their agenda, for me the ‘discussion’ is long over. 

35B636F3-4953-47EC-A3B2-5070A453236E.gif

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
33 minutes ago, Sylvia Tamalyn said:

I need a Taylor Swift "IBTL" gif.

 

tenor-127141691.gif

Huh. For years I have said "I don't block anyone as it is better to know what the idiots are saying and also, how can you read a thread when half of the comments are blocked?" I still believe that but have been trying a social experiment. I was tooling along just fine through most of page 13 and then it started going sideways. Page 14 shows mostly blank on my monitor. ??? 😄

So I guess taking that fact into the mix of things, I shouldn't be surprised that I'm seeing people bailing and saying IBTL.  On my screen however, life is still ok.  hmmm

Edited by Gatogateau
numbers numbers math math math
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I'm sure we all know by now what I think of Gor and how I like to express it. As with so much humour, it's a defence. I rip the merciless and ever living piss out of it because it terrifies me. It's sinister, hateful and misogynistic, but it's unkillable and for many people it's the first and only experience they ever get with anything related to BDSM (it isn't BDSM, of course, but lots of people think it is, and that's partly what's so frightening). 

I don't actually find it remotely funny that there is an entire subculture based around a series of absolutely sh*t books that expound, at length and without irony, the literal subhumanity of women, how they all need, deserve and want horrible abuse and how every nasty misogynistic stereotype you've ever heard of, plus about 12 that you haven't, are in fact entirely true. The only defence I really have is to make it ridiculous (which isn't hard, because it IS completely risible). It's less frightening and also less powerful when it becomes a total joke. And a few people have said to me that they find my rants about it to be funny, that they are entertained by just how much I loathe it and - crucially - that I have caused them to reconsider their thoughts on it. That is exactly what I set out to do, so it warms the cockles of my black, shrivelled heart to hear it. When people are laughing, they're also listening. 

I'm not trying to convert Goreans to my way of thinking. If they've read the books I have, and many of them say they have, and they weren't repelled by the endless vile misogyny, then honestly I've got no idea how I can make the nastiness any clearer than the author did, and all I can really do is try to ward others off. I don't care if I offend people with it; if you find Gor acceptable then you've got no right to come at me claiming that I'm offensive. But I am careful never to attack anyone individually (except in anecdotes of various encounters with random anonymous Goreans or, of course, the great gutless witless worthless Glorious Leader Nobhead himself, and trust me he's been saying worse about me for considerably longer than I've been alive). I'll attack the culture and the source material and the beliefs but I won't make personal insults to the individual having the conversation. I'll just shout them in RL and moon at my laptop. Have at thee! 

And if someone thinks I'm not funny, well that's their prerogative. Nobody has to laugh. But I would remind them that the funniest scene the Glorious Leader ever wrote was a man dragging a woman along going HUR HUR RAPE RAPE RAPE while she cried OH NO NOT RAPE and he went YES RAPE HUR HUR and she cried OH NO NOT RAPE and then he went HUR HUR JUST KIDDING TIME TO EAT SOME GLUE HUR HUR I'M GOREAN RAAAAA.

I mean, you really might as well laugh at my jokes. At least mine are intentional.

Edited by Amina Sopwith
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, Fauve Aeon said:

I’m out too, when someone thinks is ok to not only repeat themselves blue but admittedly disregard other posters in favor of hammering on with their agenda, for me the ‘discussion’ is long over. 

35B636F3-4953-47EC-A3B2-5070A453236E.gif

Welcome to the scary portion of this place, where severe head trauma from repeatedly hitting one's head into one's desk is a very real possibility.

 

TS scary.gif

Edited by Gatogateau
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Amina Sopwith said:

I'm sure we all know by now what I think of Gor and how I like to express it.

I know you've mentioned it a lot, but I missed out on your personal experience. Would be great if you could either do a recap or point me to the thread where you discussed it.

It does seem to be very much like a religion for some.

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, FairreLilette said:

Why would that be if Christianity didn't even exist yet as it's letters of instructions as to how the first Christian churches should act/behave/be controlled, however you want to put it?

No one has ever said that. I see you found the consensus dated for Paul’s letters, finding them for the canonical Gospels should be just as easy. Let me know when you’re done editing your posts, thanks.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, FairreLilette said:

@Luna Bliss well, let's create a California sim.  I want to live in central California too but can't right now.  lol

Could be fun. I just saw on a weather report that southern CA will hit 104 or 109 this weekend?  No thanks!  Of course even in SF they've had hot spells of  over 100 recently, and many don't have air-conditioning. Not sure I'd survive.  Plus the smoke from the fires happening more often now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, Amina Sopwith said:

Lots of good points but I'm focusing on this:

 

When people are laughing, they're also listening. 

Exactly. That's why shows like John Stewart and now Trevor Noah with The Daily Show, John Oliver, and Steven Colbert are all so amazingly effective. That they tend to mix real news and facts in with their material makes these shows in some ways more valuable than "XYZ's News Tonight" serious news shows, because any more those are not real  (investigative) journalism but merely repetition of stuff that happens. "Today the White House released a statement that said :::drivel:::" without actually delving into what was said in the statement, if it is correct, etc. merely that  "it was released" and what it said, regardless of its validity.

Edited by Gatogateau
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 116 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...