FOT Forum
FOT Community => General Discussion => Topic started by: John Junk 2.0 on December 04, 2008, 12:26:05 AM
-
I can't bring myself to watch.
-
It's not terrible. And only a couple minutes long.
-
It's not unwatchable.
(It does some of the really ignorant "Hey Christians, if you hate gays why don't you follow the entire canon of Jewish law" business, which bugs me. An informed Christian-bashing is a more effective Christian-bashing.)
-
Okay I just watched it. It wasn't funny, but should it Die? I don't know. I give it a C.
I really hate that West Wing Mrs. Crabapple lady though.
Also, w.t.f., where was all this shit BEFORE the election??
-
man I dont know what it is, but the whole idea of funny or die is basically the opposite of enticing for me.
In fact I will see a video that WAS featured on funny or die on some other site, and like it, but it still won't get me to go over to funny or die to actually laugh at or kill videos.
But I can barely tolerate any tiny-screen online streaming video sites unless I'm looking for something super specific, I guess that's just it really.
-
It's not unwatchable.
(It does some of the really ignorant "Hey Christians, if you hate gays why don't you follow the entire canon of Jewish law" business, which bugs me. An informed Christian-bashing is a more effective Christian-bashing.)
But that would require the Christian-bashers to actually know something about Christianity. This way, it's less work. In many ways it's like that sea of protestors who picketed Scorsese's "Last Temptation of Christ" without ever having seen the film or read the book. Ignorance cuts both ways!!!
-
Of all "or die" things I much prefer "Skate".
-
i'll go with "Vote". I got'chu, Puffy!
-
In many ways it's like that sea of protestors who picketed Scorsese's "Last Temptation of Christ" without ever having seen the film or read the book.
They knew that if they saw it they'd be forced to admit that Willem Dafoe is Lord.
-
Meh, as you young folks say.
-
I'll watch it if someone digitally removes Margaret Cho.
-
Do you think she insisted on wearing a tanktop to show off her late-in-life (speculating) tats? (aka Lex Garofalo)
-
Margaret Cho: hotter or funnier?
-
It's not unwatchable.
(It does some of the really ignorant "Hey Christians, if you hate gays why don't you follow the entire canon of Jewish law" business, which bugs me. An informed Christian-bashing is a more effective Christian-bashing.)
Could you explain the distinction? I'd like to understand, and I don't see it. To my mind, the Bible says a lot of things that seem completely crazy. Its interdictions against homosexuality fall into that category. I'm not sure how that is simple-minded, and I'd like to understand.
People who actually have to deal with homophobia and anti-gay forces in our world, frankly, need to marshal every available argument. It's not an easy task.
Also, fighting back against anti-gay Christians is not the same thing as Christian-bashing, although anti-gay Christians would probably like you to think so. For example, I am both gay and Christian, and I don't interpret most criticisms of Christianity with respect to gay/lesbian issues, or practically in any other context, as an attack on my faith. I sense that you already kind of realize this, and I don't mean to be obnoxious about it.
Gay and lesbian people are feeling a little demoralized right about now and could use some help from our straight allies.
-
Maybe this is the distinction: It's one thing to say, "Leviticus says that God hates homosexual behavior, but it also says that people should not consume shellfish, and on and on. So that means that you Christians can't eat shrimp. Do you? If so, you're a hypocrite!"
It's another thing to place that so-called condemnation of homosexual behavior in the context of all the frankly nutty prohibitions and condemnations in Leviticus, many of which non-fundamentalists accept as the prejudices or beliefs of the writers/transcribers of what Christians now refer to as the Old Testiment. So maybe it shouldn't be considered God's law that gay people be condemned in the world of today. That kind of distinction I can grasp.
-
It's not unwatchable.
(It does some of the really ignorant "Hey Christians, if you hate gays why don't you follow the entire canon of Jewish law" business, which bugs me. An informed Christian-bashing is a more effective Christian-bashing.)
Could you explain the distinction? I'd like to understand, and I don't see it. To my mind, the Bible says a lot of things that seem completely crazy. Its interdictions against homosexuality fall into that category. I'm not sure how that is simple-minded, and I'd like to understand.
I'm not a believing Christian, I just find its history and development interesting.
The New Testament explicitly says that the letter of Jewish law (contained in the Old Testament) need not be followed by Christians. This applies to dietary restrictions and circumcision and most everything ritual-y. Galatians and Romans deal with this.
At the same time, the New Testament itself contains anti-homosexual language (Romans 1:26). And it's only the ritual nature of the Jewish law, not moral teachings or the law's "spirit," which Christians can disregard.
When the Bible tells you to ignore an earlier bit of the Bible, you're not picking and choosing by doing just that. If you want to tell a Christian that he's being inconsistent in his own faith, you could use a complex anti-law pro-spirit argument that shows how Paul's writings need to be treated the same way as he treated the Old Testament, which is feasible. (By the way, Paul wrote Romans and Galatians before the gospels we have today were written. The earliest Christians didn't need a magic book.) Certainly the bulk of the teachings of the New Testament outweigh a few offhand remarks.
And if someone wants to go an an anti-Christian crusade, he'll have a better time of it if he actually understands what it is that Christians believe.
-
In Biblical times and today, shellfish is almost never the right choice.
-
That statement is eight kinds of nuts, JJ.
-
That statement is eight kinds of nutz, JJ.
Here's nine more
(http://www.uniquepranks.com/images/items/big/nutz-big.jpg)
-
Ten.
P.S. This shellfish talk catches me at a sensitive moment: it is scallop season, and the wicked developer next door has a sign set up offering to buy scallops for $6.75, which means the retail price is far too high for me to justify. In years past, I could count on one fisherman or the other to give me a free pound or two, but I'm out of those loops now. I did think of putting up a sign of my own offering to buy two pounds of scallops for $13.50 (heck, I'd even go as high as $15), but then the WD would probably accuse me of interfering with his business and hire some lackey to burn me out. So I'll probably just sit here and covet. Which, come to think of it, is one of the seven deadly sins, so maybe that biblical injunction has some merit after all.
-
Ten.
P.S. This shellfish talk catches me at a sensitive moment: it is scallop season, and the wicked developer next door has a sign set up offering to buy scallops for $6.75, which means the retail price is far too high for me to justify. In years past, I could count on one fisherman or the other to give me a free pound or two, but I'm out of those loops now. I did think of putting up a sign of my own offering to buy two pounds of scallops for $13.50 (heck, I'd even go as high as $15), but then the WD would probably accuse me of interfering with his business and hire some lackey to burn me out. So I'll probably just sit here and covet. Which, come to think of it, is one of the seven deadly sins, so maybe that biblical injunction has some merit after all.
So is pride. Why? Isn't it a good thing to be proud? I think of it as analogous to having self-esteem, and therefore a good thing in most cases. Of course, having pride can be a bad thing, resulting in egomaniacal behavior in some individuals, nationalism or ethnocentrism in groups, or extreme tastelessness at gay pride parades. Other than those, why is it a deadly sin? Oh, Christianity, you confound me.
I hope you get some good scallops at a good price, Sarah.
-
I have committed eating shellfish in my heart several times today.
-
Surely there are worse sins, yesno. But this from a man whose profile reads "leave no child unsliced"? Is that an homage to Spike? Whatever the case, I love it.
-
Surely there are worse sins, yesno. But this from a man whose profile reads "leave no child unsliced"? Is that an homage to Spike? Whatever the case, I love it.
http://www.recidivism.org/2008/08/balance_buddies.html
MARKY: You know, it's my experience that kids are always great at scrounging up food.
SCHARPLING: Scrounging up food.
MARKY: Yeah. I mean, there's pizza places all over town, which leads me to my next thing.
SCHARPLING: Okay.
MARKY: My Pizza Voucher Program.
SCHARPLING: (chuckling) Pizza Voucher Program.
MARKY: Yeah, I got the best slogan for it, too.
SCHARPLING: Okay, what is your slogan for your Pizza Voucher Program?
MARKY: "LEAVE NO CHILD UN-SLICED."
SCHARPLING: (laughing) Leave ... Okay. Are you sure that ... it sounds you're saying you want to slice children.
MARKY: No, I wanna give 'em slices. And drumsticks, too, 'cause what parent don't want their kid to play drums?
SCHARPLING: Alright ... fair enough.
-
Margaret Cho: hotter or funnier?
Two-way tie for last.
-
it made me laugh. jack black is awesome. it looked like they were having fun. even if i really don't like gay people very much. why does everyone hate verything so much? what are some funny videos to watch?