Jesus

[Zarathustra]

Look, it is something about your culture.

You, Nico, well, you've figured out how to still be funny.

But yours is a high-brow humor that the common man wouldn't really appreciate.

As such, I think you've probably worked within your cultural milieu, and found a way to still be funny.

The particular cultural milieu that is Germany is one of being too serious, too rational, and very "boring/dull/grey".

The culture seems to be all about efficiency and effective engineering, and not so much about relaxing and kicking back.

I mean, it's clear from her two responses that Red Herring did not even understand the intended humor of the video.

As in, it's not that she simply didn't appreciate it, she didn't even get it.

As such, sometimes y'all feel like a bunch of robots.

It's like, "Does not compute."

 

[Red Herring]

I protest! Of you reread my post you'll see the first thing I said that hopefully it was a parody. The last time I said that about a religious Video I was informed that it was no Satire, so this Forum has tought me to be careful.Also, the poster is a devout Cristian IIRC.

Either way, parody is one of my least favorite forms of humor. And while there are very funny Americans both in the arts and among normal people, I personally prefer British or traditional Jewish Humor (which of course had an influence on modern American comedy)

So...of I want to continue a sociological and historical debate about humor traditions, does that make me a humorless German or a boring INTP?

 

[Zarathustra]

I protest! Of you reread my post you'll see the first thing I said that hopefully it was a parody. The last time I said that about a religious Video I was informed that it was no Satire, so this Forum has tought me to be careful.Also, the poster is a devout Cristian IIRC.

No, that is exactly why I said you clearly did not get it.

Either way, parody is one of my least favorite forms of humor. And while there are very funny Americans both in the arts and among normal people, I personally prefer British or traditional Jewish Humor (which of course had an influence on modern American comedy)

So...of I want to continue a sociological and historical debate about humor traditions, does that make me a humorless German or a boring INTP?

Both.

 

[UniqueMixture]

I think the problem is that He didn't see these things as moral problems. We can infer this because he did not speak against them.

So I am infering that He was morally blind just like all those around Him.

I understood what you were saying. Think of it this way, if you believe earthly things have no value then you will not start a social movement for economic justice. You could say similar things about buddhist monks because their goal is to give up all bodily and material desire. In that mindset a person could be a slave and still serve God. This is why I disagree with much of religion. It accepts the "natural order" of things (aka institutionalized abuse). With that said, I'm not going to fault someone who spent their life trying to bring about positive change in the world. I think such people show us what humanity is capable of.

 

[Totenkindly]

I understood what you were saying. Think of it this way, if you believe earthly things have no value then you will not start a social movement for economic justice. You could say similar things about buddhist monks because their goal is to give up all bodily and material desire. In that mindset a person could be a slave and still serve God. This is why I disagree with much of religion. It accepts the "natural order" of things (aka institutionalized abuse). With that said, I'm not going to fault someone who spent their life trying to bring about positive change in the world. I think such people show us what humanity is capable of.

Lots of inferences being made by Victor.

Inferences = Assumptions
(... and everyone knows what is said about assumptions)

Good point about the monks. One could infer that they do not care about rape, poverty, and a host of other ills if they spend their lives in private meditation rather than directly challenging such social injustice. But I think that would be an incorrect assumption.

Anyone with ANY amount of Christian training will be aware of discussions about what Jesus' priority seemed to be on this earth (if one believes in the faith), what he focused on, and why he might or might not have challenged particular institutions. It would not take much effort to imagine such possibilities or uncover such discussions on the 'net, but it seems like getting such a basic comprehensive picture is not one of Victor's concerns here.

... then again, maybe I shouldn't assume such.

 

[UniqueMixture]

[MENTION=7]Jennifer[/MENTION] he is trying to justify his moral superiority to jesus because of course HE would have done differently. HE is not insane and claiming to be God incarnate. Therefore HE is emotionally (and thus intellectually) superior to one of history's "great men" pfff

 

[Totenkindly]

he is trying to justify his moral superiority to jesus because of course HE would have done differently. HE is not insane and claiming to be God incarnate. Therefore HE is emotionally (and thus intellectually) superior to one of history's "great men" pfff

And two hundred years from now, someone on a forum somewhere will post an OP decrying Victor for his moral failings compared to the then-current day and age?

 

[Rasofy]

I think it is time to create another Jesus.

 

[Zarathustra]

I think it is time to create another Jesus.

Youuuuuu raaaaang?

 

[RaptorWizard]

Arguing for Creationism and Jesus is easy. All you have to do is say that GOD DID IT!

 

[Gemini]

I think the video was effective: it insults both irreverence and rational thought, and does so under the guise of humor. Moreover, its quite an effective diversion. Perhaps the video would have been funnier if it wasn't so defensive; there's and undertone of hostility. But if it was funnier I'm guessing it wouldn't have achieved its purpose.

 

[Zarathustra]

I think the video was effective: it insults both irreverence and rational thought, and does so under the guise of humor. Moreover, its quite an effective diversion. Perhaps the video would have been funnier if it wasn't so defensive; there's and undertone of hostility. But if it was funnier I'm guessing it wouldn't have achieved its purpose.

You were right about everything but the "rational thought" bit.

Edit: well, that, and that your own defensiveness probably made you think it's less funny than I did.

 

[Gemini]

Right in the very beginning, he asks rhetorical questions; one of them being "Are you afraid that faith will compromise your reason, yet feel you're drowning in the fashionable intellectual cesspool of non-belief..?" Juxtaposing the words "intellectual" and "cesspool" is indicative of how little he (they?) value reason, and rational thought. I'd go so far as to say that he considers independent, rational thought to be an enemy of faith....

....and he'd be correct.


Really, I'm wasn't being defensive. I'm just disappointed that the video was so diversionary.

 

[Zarathustra]

Right in the very beginning, he asks rhetorical questions; one of them being "Are you afraid that faith will compromise your reason, yet feel you're drowning in the fashionable intellectual cesspool of non-belief..?" Juxtaposing the words "intellectual" and "cesspool" is indicative of how little he (they?) value reason, and rational thought.

Actually, if you look at the entire phrase, it is "fashionable intellectual cesspool of non-belief".

His point is not that there is anything wrong with being an intellectual or intellectualism.

His point is that non-belief is so like many fashionable intellectual movements before it.

In other words, it is vapid, unsubstantiated, and groundless. See: Marxism.

...I'd go so far as to say that he considers independent, rational thought to be an enemy of faith....

And you'd be wrong.

What he thinks is that non-belief is not actually rational thought.

That it merely poses as rational thought, but is completely undeserving of the name.

....and he'd be correct.

In my version, yes.

In your version, no.

I'm just disappointed that the video was so diversionary.

If by "diversionary" you mean "counter to what you find important", then yes, you're using that word correctly.

 

[Gemini]

By "diversionary" I meant that the subject went from "Philosophy and Spirituality" to Video content; but I am encouraged by your reading comprehension level. )

There's nothing reasonable or rational about the notion of an invisible man that lives in the sky.

As far as the video is concerned, I think its duplicitous in that it makes pretensions at being humorous. But I guess we're just viewing it from diametrically opposite perspectives...which is okay, isn't it?

 

[UniqueMixture]

We worship because we've been genetically programmed to do so. For millions of years, humans existed in small groups, each having a leader. Gene frequencies were adjusted over eons so that most people - very much like today - want or even need to follow. It had to be that way, because groups with people who didn't have a strong need to belong, and to follow....didn't work together. Those groups failed.

The leader of a group ( or tribe or whatever ) makes the important decisions for the group. He watches out for the group...and all he wants is your loyalty. So you trust in him, you look to him to provide food, shelter....sound familiar....?

Yes, but today ironically it is the opposite.

 

[Zarathustra]

There's nothing reasonable or rational about the notion of an invisible man that lives in the sky.

Nor is there anything reasonable or rational about setting up straw men in the place of God.

As far as the video is concerned, I think its duplicitous in that it makes pretensions at being humorous.

Attempting to be humorous and make a point: the nerve of some people!

But I guess we're just viewing it from diametrically opposite perspectives...which is okay, isn't it?

I don't think you know enough about my views to say that we're coming from diametrically opposite perspectives.

Unless, of course, you're calling me a person of reason and yourself a person of faith.

In that case, then yes, you're (once again) using those words correctly.

 

[RaptorWizard]

The essene was a cult, it was not a sect in my opinion, which has a strong connection with both Christ and especially with His cousin John the Baptist. The esseniens had a huge influence upon the christianity, just as much as Christ's super-civilization (and you will understand why I say that) had a huge influence upon the essenes (I don't know if I write correct or not).

 

[Mole]

I'm not sure how this supports the idea that Jesus was stupid and illiterate.

The printing press was invented in 1440 leading to the dream of universal literacy only realised in developed countries hundreds of years later.

So prior to universal literacy in developed countries all times and places had a spoken culture, including Palestine in the first century.

And although I infer Jesus was illiterate, I have never suggested He was stupid.

 

[The Great One]

Or 4w3/5?

I'm definitely not seeing Jesus with a 3 anywhere in his enneatype.