--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > > > ME: Let me stop you there. Can you name a single person > > > > who could be expected to react in horror from a satiric > > > > piece on Christianity here? Name one pearl-clutcher, to > > > > use you apt image. A single person whose identification > > > > with the ideas contained in the myths of Christianity, > > > > is so complete that anything I wrote could be expected > > > > to react in the way your are trying to project here. One. > > > > > > I think the only such easily-offended and uptight > > > person is herself, Curtis. What a bowling ball- > > > sized burr she had up her ass today, trying to > > > "get" her perceived enemies. > > > > > > She was so gone that she couldn't even get that > > > my appreciation for the Brahma Shave poems them- > > > selves was genuine and that I liked them, and > > > that my response to her "don't rip off my artwork" > > > post was a joke, intended to push her buttons. > > > Instead, all that happened was that she got her > > > buttons pushed. In a very real sense, Raunchy is > > > the very pearl clutcher she describes. > > > > > > > I argue that mine is exactly the opposite motivation than > > > > the one you propose here. I wrote it for people who share > > > > my sense of humor, I am an entertainer. > > > > > > Why they react the way they do, Curtis, is that > > > they are not. They're stuck in the rut of being > > > "mean girls," and don't have either the creativity > > > or the intent to try to say anything funny and get > > > people to laugh. > > > > Thanks for the support. The thing is that Raunchy has > > been very funny here quite often. That marks her out from > > the pack in my opinion. > > I admit that she's *tried* to sound funny, but it > almost never worked for me. Too much trying, too > little actual funny. > > > And she is not afraid to say is she likes something I > > have written, which occasionally happens to and I do > > appreciate that. > > True that. Can you imagine Judy ever getting the > hate-burr out of her butt long enough to do that? :-) > > > But this post had too much of the Church Lady vibe > > for my taste. > > "Church Lady" is too high-vibe, cuz one gets the > feeling that the SNL Church Lady character actually > believed the shit she was saying. With Raunchy, no > way...it's all faux outrage, over something she > doesn't even feel any connection to, the little > baby Jeeezus myth. > > Speaking of which, this was the billboard erected > in Times Square yesterday. It contains a sentiment > similar to the one you've been expressing: > > [american atheists christmas billboard] > http://i.huffpost.com/gen/898888/thumbs/o-AMERICAN-ATHEISTS-CHRISTMAS-BI\ > LLBOARD-570.jpg?6 > <http://i.huffpost.com/gen/898888/thumbs/o-AMERICAN-ATHEISTS-CHRISTMAS-B\ > ILLBOARD-570.jpg?6> > > I wouldn't characterize myself as an atheist, more of a > Who *needs* a God kinda person. Occam's Razor is your > friend -- if no God and no Savior are needed to explain > the workings of the world, then chances are they aren't > needed to explain those workings. The simplest explan- > ation (no God, no need for one) is most likely the best > explanation. > > But some prefer fairy tales and myths. So be it. Just as > long as they don't try to sell them to me...
Amen to that. Back in the days when UK's Channel 4 was a decent TV station they used to do an alternative Christmas with things like send ups of the Queens speech done by Marge Simpson or Mahmoud Amindenijad. They would also show documentaries about the story of Christ done by this radical Bishop who seemed not to believe any of it. His last one that I saw deconstructed the whole myth about Bethlehem. The Romans, when they did a census, didn't have the whole country walking to one place to register, they were a bit more organised and had stations all over the place. The reason Jesus' parents (well, one of them) had to walk cross country was because of an old Testament prophecy that the messiah would be born in Bethlehem. So the storytellers moved him there because he was a likely candidate. Jesus was supposed to be the saviour of the Jews of course but he wasn't very good at it and after they had him crucified it left a kind of embarrassing gap about what he supposed to be here for if it wasn't what everyone thought. That's when the whole resurrection and him dying to forgive the world's sins was dreamt up, to try and make sense out of it later and make the original prediction worthwhile in some way. Virgin birth? Jesus' Mum was probably raped by a Roman soldier. Don't get upset girls, I'm just passing this on from a CofE Bishop. He didn't leave much of the story intact, God only knows why he's a Bishop but he still claimed that Jesus was sent to save us by God. I think the damage was done by then because that was the last alternative Christmas that Channel 4 ever did. More's the pity, I like a bit of contrariness.
