Join 3,574 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


HE answers some queries
September 12, 2002 2:30 AM   Subscribe

HE answers some queries A short list ( though more than 10 ) of modern commandments (via boing boing)
posted by johnny7 (33 comments total)

 
I'm sure I won't be the first to point this out, but does anybody else see the irony in this one?

If you didn't hear it straight from my lips, take it with a grain of salt. —God

On a page that advertises T-shirts of made-up God quotes? C'mon now.

Bah. If these were funny, I probably wouldn't bothering picking that particular nits, but most of those jokes are obvious and lame ... the kind of thing the cool, hip, down-with-the-kids priest at my Catholic high school would have found funny. (He was, of course, only cool and hip and down with the kids in his mind.)
posted by textureslut at 2:54 AM on September 12, 2002


Hmm, but textureslut, isn't that intended irony? I mean, the site is obviously intended to be humorous on some level aye?

Just my two cents.
posted by mogwai at 3:11 AM on September 12, 2002


Who knew god was so annoying and boring? And such a lazy designer, too?
posted by robself at 3:36 AM on September 12, 2002


Mogwai: I suppose that is theoretically possible, but the level of humor throughout the site makes me hesitate to give them the benefit of the doubt on that one.

I know, it's late, I'm tired. I should say something nice. Here's something: Mogwai rocks. (Both 21st century Mogwai and 20th century Mogwai.)
posted by textureslut at 3:46 AM on September 12, 2002


Thanks for the link johnny7.

I especially liked the last commandment. [/smirk]
posted by nofundy at 4:58 AM on September 12, 2002


I thought they did exactly what was intended -- parody the simplistic billboards spread all over -- well all over my town.

Please tell me we're not the only area of the country that has to suffer those damn billboards. Misery...well, you know.
posted by ?! at 5:17 AM on September 12, 2002


Yeah, I've seen those billboards, ?!. Agreed, they are lame. But while those billboards are a product of annoying self-righteous conservative Christians, this site is a product of annoying self-righteous liberal Christians. They both lose.

On the other hand, at least the saysgod site doesn't have that wretched MIDI music. Brr.
posted by textureslut at 5:32 AM on September 12, 2002


I agree with you textureslut. Two annoyingly self-righteous sets of quotes driven by an agenda kinda cancel each other out and negate the parody for me. And anyone who thinks that the original billboards are annoying should move up to western Wisconsin where a drive down any highway will subject you to an incredible number of billboards featuring cloyingly cute pictures of babies with pro-choice (or anti-abortion, take your pick) slogans underneath them.
posted by MrBaliHai at 6:02 AM on September 12, 2002


with pro-choice

Make that "pro-life". Gotta keep my euphemisms straight.
posted by MrBaliHai at 6:19 AM on September 12, 2002


I thought the site was funny. Maybe they weren't classic comedy but they weren't that bad.

Oh, I'm agnostic and I like the billboards.

I think it's a clever way of christians trying to spread their faith without being rude or obnoxious about it.

What do you actually want? That they don't try and spread their beliefs? They aren't knocking on the door, or saying your going to hell.
posted by Yossarian at 7:06 AM on September 12, 2002


Yossarian, I'd rather that they don't try and spread their beliefs. Christianity is like Coca-Cola: everyone knows it's out there, everyone knows what it tastes like, everyone knows where to get it, and everyone knows what it costs. No need for an ad campaign.
posted by stonerose at 7:12 AM on September 12, 2002


Coca-Cola is one one of the biggest advertisers there are. That's exactly why everyone knows they are out there. Religon is like any business (my wife hates when I say that [lol]), they more customers it has the better it does.

To say that they should not broadcast their message because they have an agenda makes no sense. Everyone who broadcasts any message has an agenda.

Why shouldn't they try and spread their beliefs? Their really not that bad (again for the record...I'm agnostic), they say don't hurt, don't steal, don't lie, etc.
posted by Yossarian at 7:21 AM on September 12, 2002


"Dear God: the Larry King shtick is getting old. Time for new material..."
posted by gimonca at 7:34 AM on September 12, 2002


"Quit making lame websites with fake quotes from me." --God
posted by trioperative at 7:37 AM on September 12, 2002


Strange that the "SaysGod" writer on the one hand glorifies evolution and disdains creationism, and, on the other hand, villifies large families.

One doesn't have to have a PhD in evolutionary biology to realize that nothing is more bizarrely unnatural -- one might even say anti-natural -- than the trend of having fewer and fewer children. The poor and weak had large families to ensure their survival, the wealthy and successful had large families as badges of success and as implements of extending their dominance.

Its not much of a trick to see that communities who have managed to combine effective accumulation of wealth with large families are doing damn well starting from very small number (cf. Mormons, Hasidic Jews since World War II, etc.)
posted by MattD at 7:44 AM on September 12, 2002


Coca-Cola is one one of the biggest advertisers there are. That's exactly why everyone knows they are out there. Religon is like any business.

At least coca-cola doesn't claim you'll suffer eternally if you drink Pepsi.

Why shouldn't they try and spread their beliefs? Their [sic] really not that bad (again for the record...I'm agnostic), they say don't hurt, don't steal, don't lie, etc.

And then they add stuff about science being false and only one religion being true... Not that I think they don't have the right to say whatever they like, but what they're spreading is not across-the-board agreeable.

Anyhoo. Both sites not that funny, & self-righteous, but I'd think these would be better than just posting bible quotes or whatever. At least they're occasionally amusing.

MattD, evolution evolves, you know? We're at a stage now when we could endanger ourselves by having too many kids. Though the site is full of contradictions - "don't make me angry" vs. "when I said, turn the other cheek...", or "where do you see my name on the front of the bible" vs. "I'm flattered you liked my book so much..." etc.
posted by mdn at 7:49 AM on September 12, 2002


I'd like to put up a bunch of billboards with random quotes from absolutely anyone -- Steffi Graf, Billy Bragg, Floyd the barber -- and attribute them all to God.

Just goes to show you one thing, Andy. If you want a beautiful suite you have to go to Mount Pilot.

--God
posted by delapohl at 7:54 AM on September 12, 2002


mdn -- that kind of collectivist analysis ("we could endanger ourselves by having too many kids") is a precise antithesis of evolution.

If I have lots of kids and ensure that they are well fed and well endowed with education, money and the other tools of prosperity, than my genes thrive; if by so doing I cause your kids (how ever many you have) to starve, then even more resources are freed up for my grandchildren, ensuring that they can have more children and further extend the dominance of my lineagle.

A hard core evolutionary scientists (or, perhaps, more accurately, a hard core sociobiologist) would contend that most 21st century "population" problems have stemmed from the (evolutionarily) inscrutable abandonment of large families by the most fit while the least fit persist in the regular pattern. They might analogize to bad game management: when the wildlife bureau doesn't let the hunters hunt, then the deers overbreed and start to kill off the trees by eating all the low hanging foilage.

I of course don't fully subscribe the implications of this (which would, for example, blame sub-Saharan population woes upon Europeans abandoning their colonies rather than continuing to fill them with the fourth and fifth sons of the English and French burgeosie) but I think that some parameters of the sociobiologist's views must be carefully considered.
posted by MattD at 8:26 AM on September 12, 2002


Yeah, not to nitpick too much, but the assertion "If I wanted you to have seven kids I would have given you a bigger planet" might be countered with: Then maybe, God, you should have put ovulation under a woman's conscious control. Or made condoms grow on trees, or something.
posted by jokeefe at 8:51 AM on September 12, 2002



One also doesn't need a PHD in evolutionary biology to realize that my genes don't care if they live in a paved-over, polluted, overpopulated world. My genes don't care about much except perpetuating themselves. I on the other hand--I can't speak for others--am something more than just a collection of my genes and my standards are a little higher. I don't want seven kids; I don't want to share a restaurant with a family with seven kids; and I'd rather not live in a world that has to accommodate a seven child family as the norm.

I won't write off sociobiology entirely, but drawing simple political or philosophical conclusions from basic genetics is just old fashioned social darwinism with a new name.
posted by octobersurprise at 9:19 AM on September 12, 2002


oh, I thought you meant HIM.
posted by badstone at 9:30 AM on September 12, 2002


If I have lots of kids and ensure that they are well fed and well endowed with education, money and the other tools of prosperity, than my genes thrive;

For most modern families, fewer kids who get more opportunities will do better than more kids who get less. having fewer kids in the modern world means you can make sure they get the food / education / healthcare etc that will allow them to be successful themselves.

inscrutable abandonment of large families by the most fit while the least fit persist in the regular pattern.

Perhaps some degree of their 'fitness' is related to the fact that they have fewer children to care for. The competition in the modern world for resources is intense; having 10 kids these days means you have to provide for 10 college educations, not to mention all their private dance / judo / chess / violin / etc lessons. In a farm environment it was economical since the kids could work. For a lawyer and her stockbroker husband there is no benefit to extra mouths to feed.
posted by mdn at 9:41 AM on September 12, 2002


octobersurprise -- I'm not criticizing, or suggesting that even a good sociobiologist, what you want or don't want, or what makes you comfortable or uncomfortable.

Rather, it is the fact of your preferences which is astounding, in evolutionary terms. That anyone wouldn't want seven kids is an essentially unprecedented development in human history. Being surrounded by strong sons and having lots of daughters to marry off to your allies' strong sons was the acme of personal ambition.
posted by MattD at 10:02 AM on September 12, 2002


All your billboard are belong to us. -- God
posted by Foosnark at 10:09 AM on September 12, 2002


mdn -- let's not attack straw men.

No one contends that for a contemporary "lawyer and her stockbroker husband" having fewer children may not be advantageous in certain respects, but what I'm suggesting is that human nature evolves much more slowly than certain aspects of human behavior -- people of high social class always used to have lots of children, and the impact of those "extra" children, in terms of acquisition of resources, was profound. The colonization of all of the Western Hemisphere and Australia and New Zealand was, more or less, the consequence of the lesser nobility and greater burgeosie's younger sons needing somewhere to go to have a lifestyle like their parent's back at home.

And, in terms of acquisition by the broader family of wealth / comfort / etc., numbers due count. If you can go without a few luxuries (violin lessons, etc.) but make sure your kids get a good education, the route to high incomes, a big family makes a big difference. Just think about the amount of wealth that you can corral into your gene pool if you have seven kids who have seven kids each, so long as each can get their educations, versus that which you'll have if you have two kids who have two kids each.
posted by MattD at 10:49 AM on September 12, 2002


I'd rather the billboards reflect what those who claim to speak for god say more accurately. For example:

"All you non-believers will burn in hell."

"I said, no birth control."

"Yes, we are superior to you."

Now, that's entertainment.
posted by haqspan at 11:14 AM on September 12, 2002


Jeez that's all been taken a bit seriously.
posted by johnny7 at 1:12 PM on September 12, 2002


Rather, it is the fact of your preferences which is astounding, in evolutionary terms.

Maybe I'm the next evolutionary leap.

Seriously, the fact of my preferences might be astounding historically, but it's meaningless in evolutionary terms. Natural selection isn't teleological. The biology in sociobiology is always complicated by the socio. Evolution doesn't demand that we live in certain ways. Evolution is a description of past processes (and speculations on possible futures), not a norm to appeal simple political or moral propositions to.
posted by octobersurprise at 1:24 PM on September 12, 2002


I, for One, welcome...no, wait.... --- God

hoping it's the last nail in that coffin...
posted by ?! at 5:59 PM on September 12, 2002



posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 12:33 AM on September 13, 2002


I suppose you could call me liberal, but I'm certainly not a Christian. All this discussion is fascinating, because I really only wrote that list of God's sayings to annoy my mother, who, with a straight face, forwarded a list of quotes from the God billboards to me.
posted by shunn789 at 4:03 AM on September 13, 2002


Shunn789, are you telling me that you've been able to make a profitable business out of annoying your mother? My opinion of your site just jumped about five notches.
posted by textureslut at 3:20 PM on September 13, 2002


Well, I haven't actually turned a profit with saysgod.com yet. If you go strictly by the $19 it took to register the domain, I'm still $14 away from profitability, because I've sold only four T-shirts and one mug for a net return so far of $5. But with more than 12,000 page requests for the main page of the site in the one week it has existed, I expect to achieve profitability in three or four more weeks.

The best thing about saysgod.com is that it is now the top referrer to my web site missionaryman.net, which exists to promote my book Missionary Man—which, while not written expressly to annoy my mother, has certainly gotten the job done. So, through all those convolutions, I suppose you could indeed say that I'm attempting to make a profit off annoying my mother. We'll see how well it works.
posted by shunn789 at 7:13 AM on September 17, 2002


« Older Best. Video. Ever....   |   Spectacular atmospheric optics... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments