How do you feel about religious humor in Second Life?

[Gatogateau]

being repetitive but somehow on point

[Orwar]

1 minute ago, LittleMe Jewell said:

I was pretty much with you until you decided to add in some 'personal attack' commentary.

   True, that bit wasn't the most sound form of argumentation, but then this isn't an electoral debate, it's someone on the Internet being annoying - and, to be fair, talking absolute nonsense which makes them appear stupid and entitled. 

[Gatogateau]

@Orwar It is sooooooooooo hard to be a nihilistic misanthrope and still appear cuddly in the Forum.  Only a few can do it successfully. :::purrs:::

[Orwar]

1 minute ago, Gatogateau said:

It is sooooooooooo hard to be a nihilistic misanthrope and still appear cuddly in the Forum.

   Are you saying I appear cuddly? Huffs.

[Gatogateau]

3 minutes ago, Orwar said:

   Are you saying I appear cuddly? Huffs.

Ummmm, no? Pretty much think you coughed up that hairball. Kitties, however, have been known to pull off sadistic sarcasm with misanthropic existential nihilism with great aplomb and a lot of purring.

ETA: I'd still do feet kneading on your lap though, claws probably mostly in.

Edited May 25, 2020 by Gatogateau

[Orwar]

6 minutes ago, Gatogateau said:

Kitties, however, have been known to pull off sadistic sarcasm with misanthropic existential nihilism with great aplomb and a lot of purring.

   Yes, such gracious little critters. 

[FairreLilette]

4 minutes ago, Orwar said:

   Yes, such gracious little critters. 

gracious or graceful?  

 

[Sparky Linden]

Just posting this as a heads up... Please get this topic back on track. If not then it will be locked down if y'all can't play nice!

[Gatogateau]

14 minutes ago, Orwar said:

   Yes, such gracious little critters. 

Sadly, in addition to being very funny, it is also highly accurate in certain instances.

Ooops. ETA: (On topic) This would be my reaction to seeing someone dressed as my particular deity in SL. An avatar of the god I don't believe in would be highly triggering for emotional meltdown. 

Edited May 25, 2020 by Gatogateau

[Nalates Urriah]

On 5/24/2020 at 11:05 AM, Lyssa Greymoon said:

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.

 

On 5/24/2020 at 11:09 AM, Lyssa Greymoon said:

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

 

On 5/24/2020 at 11:12 AM, TDD123 said:

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.

The thread is moving fast. I'm skipping parts.

There is good evidence the first Gospel written was Mark. Most scholars agree. But fewer believe it was written after the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. The thinking is because Paul's arrest and imprisonment in Roman is written about but Paul's death is not, so it is generally agreed the Gospel of Mark was completed before Paul's execution.

Proof comes in various forms. Since Paul only directly quotes Jesus from the Gospels once (1 Corinthians 11:24-) and Paul's only firsthand experience with Jesus was on the road to Damascus... that quote likely came from one of the Gospels. This doesn't prove the timeline's position in time but it proves the sequence in which the writing occurred.

Much of the dating of the writings is based on events recorded in secular history. The destruction of the Temple in 70AD is a defining moment in history and Jewish theology. For the Jewish people this was an incredible event we have a hard time relating to. As 9-11 is a momentous event for Americans the destruction of the Temple was an even bigger event for the Hebrew people. This wasn't just the loss of a war and the destruction of a building. This was a complete shattering of a society.

For 9-11 to compare the Arabs would have had to destroy the two towers, capture and destroy DC - meaning destroy the US's political system, kill 60 million about 20% of the population - Josephus writes there were so many dead bodies you could  not see the ground, and take Americans home as slaves. The spiritual impact was that the Temple sacrifices were gone, meaning they had no way to enter heaven. Seculary history records that the price of slaves collapsed from so many Hebrews being sold into slavery, which was prophesied in Deuteronomy.28.68, written either 7th century BC or about 550 BC depending on which scholar one wants to quote.  There is no doubt about when the Romans put down the Jewish revolt, 70AD.

The New Testament records all the events of importance to the new church. However, it always refers to the Destruction of the Temple as a future event. This means they had to have been written before 70AD. The destruction is no small thing that it would not be mentioned. Plus, Jesus prophesied the destruction of the Temple. If the Gospels were written after 70 AD adding that the prophecy came true would have added cred, yet it is never mentioned.

There were huge political factors in the day. The traditional Jews denied Jesus was the Messiah. The destruction of the Temple meant that the Messiah must have already come and gone... or all that they believed from what we call the Old Testament was wrong. This was a big deal and still is. The result was a lot was written by various people of the day, Roman, Jewish, and Christian, in the first century and some of that has survived down to today.

It does not remain to be seen if these books were written between 40 and 70 AD. Using only what we find in writings other than the Bible and the ancient copies we have retrieved we can get almost 100% of the Bible's New Testament text from first and second century historians and and validate it with first century witters. For them to quote, what they quote has to have been written before their writing. So even if the latest New Testament manuscripts are AD 150+/- there are earlier quotes of the New Testament.

In the book The Fisherman's Tomb the author John O'Neill gets into the dating of what is believed to be Peter's bones. Part of the mental exercise was dating the Jewish graffiti written on Roman walls. Often it was early Christian creeds taken from what became the New Testament. Some of the graffiti creeds found and dated require the Gospels to have been written early and available to the early church to be taught to earlier followers otherwise they could not have written the graffiti. Some scholars push the dating into the late 30's and early 40's.

[Sylvia Tamalyn]

Hmm, the actual topic of the thread is how do we feel about religious humor in SL. 

I think it's great. 

[Dano Seale]

2 hours ago, Gatogateau said:

nihilistic misanthrope

Were these people "pre" or "post" Cro-Magnon man?  🤔

I actually don't know what all the fuss is about to be honest. I mean, there's so many men with long hair and beards in SL that nobody would know who dafuq he was supposed to be anyway! (unless he was going to wander around carting a large cross over his shoulder that is).

[Gatogateau]

34 minutes ago, Dano Seale said:

stuff  I'm guessing humour n such

what?

[missyrideout]

Now that I think about it, it WOULD be  funny to see someone try to live their Second Life with universal love and compassion. Good luck!

[Dano Seale]

4 hours ago, Gatogateau said:

4 hours ago, Dano Seale said:

stuff  I'm guessing humour n such

what?

Dunno. I never said that!  

[Seicher Rae]

1 hour ago, Dano Seale said:

Dunno. I never said that!  

No you didn't. What the... Nevermind, it ain't important.

 

[kiramanell]

Got to do some more thinking (in a thread about a guy who got resurrected, but which itself just won't die. 😇)

That potato lady and Letterman. It wasn't so bad, in my eyes. Primarily because I didn't feel she was being mocked. For sure, there was a bit of nervous giggle going on, which is rather normal when an audience is being confronted with a certain amount of eccentricity. And she didnt actually believe there was a goat in her potato chip. In effect, she was no different from ppl seeing animals in clouds. Many do. I do. And guy taking potato chip out of his own bowl, that really WAS funny.

In my country, there's a very popular show ("De Wereld Draait Door"). The very first episode/pilot was awful, though. They had a generic (possibly genetic) blonde on the show. She was stereotypical in every way, pretty, and not too bright. She was rather native too. But very kind. And the 3 men, also guests on the show, were making fun of her. They kept telling she had to press 'the Play' (-button). An incredibly juvenile pun based on the fact 'de plee' (= the toilet) sounds the same in Dutch. I wasn't amused at all. Not simply because of the bad humor, but because I was appalled by the 'gentlemen' mocking her, without her even realizing it.  That, to me, is on par with making fun of mentally disabled people. She wasn't, really, but might as well been.  It was downright cruel. They were making infantile jokes, over her head, compounded by the fact that she was being very nice, all the way thru. But she was defenseless (heck, she didn't even realize she was being attacked). That kinda cruelty I find abhorrent. And if I ever catch someone doing that in front of me, I will rip him apart, quite literally.

Now, onto the Jesus-toast. Remember this one?

 

 

No one here, in their right mind, would ever believe my breakfast toast, yesterday morning, really showed an outline of Fairre in it. They would smile a bit, maybe, or think "Kira, that's obviously doctored!"Or simply think not much of it at all, as every sane person understands FAKE being FAKE.

But now for the thing I can't really answer, what makes this clear fraud so different from a toast showing Jesus? Or, put differently, what make ppl suddenly drop their normally quite working common sense when a picture of Jesus is seen in a toast? Why are they suddenly highly offended for not being believed? I get that Jesus is an important figure to many, but why does a picture of Jesus in a toast not invoke the same common sense brakes on one's gullibility, like when seeing a toast with the face of Fairre in it?!

As always, I don't mean to offend anyone. And no, not Fairre either.

[Dano Seale]

10 hours ago, Seicher Rae said:

No you didn't. What the... Nevermind, it ain't important.

If it was supposed to be about the "cro-magnon" post of mine you seemed confused about?....Well, it's just I always find that word "misanthrope" reminds me of caveman times for some reason! Told you and Scylla before, those big words confuse me.  😔

[Luna Bliss]

32 minutes ago, kiramanell said:

every sane person understands FAKE being FAKE.

Or, put differently, what make ppl suddenly drop their normally quite working common sense when a picture of Jesus is seen in a toast?

I remember you revealed being a Christian. I could ask you, how is it you believe Christ existed when it's never been proven? Or how can you believe he rose from the dead when there is no scientific proof this can happen?

Edited May 26, 2020 by Luna Bliss

[kiramanell]

1 minute ago, Luna Bliss said:

I remember you said you were a Christian. I could ask you, how is it you believe Christ existed when it's never been proven? Or how can you believe he rose from the dead when there is no scientific proof this can happen.

 

My question was not just generically why people believe in this or that, but why there's a glaring incongruency between why people have enough common sense to utterly dismiss portrait X in toast Y, but will suddenly insist the existence of portrait Z, in same toast Y, is absolutely real.

 

 

[Luna Bliss]

3 minutes ago, kiramanell said:

My question was not just generically why people believe in this or that, but why there's a glaring incongruency between why people have enough common sense to utterly dismiss portrait X in toast Y, but will suddenly insist the existence of portrait Z, in same toast Y, is absolutely real.

If those involved in religion believe a spiritual dimension is real, and that it talks to them, wouldn't it communicate spiritual realities?   "Fairre" in the toast would not be considered a spiritual reality and so more likely be dismissed.

Also, I don't know that all people would dismiss portrait X, for various reasons, not all of them spiritual or religious.

[Luna Bliss]

1 hour ago, kiramanell said:

No one here, in their right mind, would ever believe my breakfast toast, yesterday morning, really showed an outline of Fairre in it.

A more interesting question could be, why did you even suggest the face is Fairre's?  What was going on in your mind that caused you to do that? It doesn't look like Fairre to me.

[kiramanell]

23 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

I remember you revealed being a Christian. I could ask you, how is it you believe Christ existed when it's never been proven? Or how can you believe he rose from the dead when there is no scientific proof this can happen?

 

I meant to skip this (and the wisest thing for me would really be to do just that), as explaining why ppl are religious is whole pages full of another topic right there. But it just occured to me I'm actually probably not the best one to ask these questions. I consider myself in Stage 4. I don't do Organized Religion; I don't believe in the Transubstantiation, candles mean nothing to me (except over dinner), I don't do rites, and while I believe Jesus existed, it doesnt really much matter to me. I do believe in God, though. And that I do not need a priest to talk to Her for me: I can do that myself just fine, thank you, soul-to-Soul.

[kiramanell]

Just now, Luna Bliss said:

A more interesting question could be, why did you even suggest the face is Fairre's?  What was going on in your mind that caused you to do that? It doesn't look like Fairre to me.

 

Um, because I Photoshopped her in, maybe?! 🤣 I suck at PS, but dangit, blending I can do! Give me burned toast, and you WILL be in there. (And now for the real kicker, the blending mode I used was 'color burn').

😍

[Luna Bliss]

3 minutes ago, kiramanell said:

I meant to skip this (and the wisest thing for me would really be to do just that), as explaining why ppl are religious is whole pages full of another topic right there. But it just occured to me I'm actually probably not the best one to ask these questions.

I think it's interesting what we're exploring, and I'm glad you began the exploration. This is all verry complicated.