Comments on: Stunt Jesus

Stunt Jesus

GernBlandston — Fri, 18 Apr 2003 10:34:24 -0800

Stunt Jesus Don't try this at home. Can someone explain how this is anything but stupid?

By: DragonBoy

DragonBoy — Fri, 18 Apr 2003 10:54:35 -0800

Can someone explain how this is anything but stupid? I can't give you any reason your post is anything but stupid. For crissakes, it's just a photo. I mean, can't you link to an article on CNN or Salon? There are a number of posts on MetaTalk that can guide you in making a good FPP on Metafilter. Look there for guidance on how to post something that is not stupid.

By: grabbingsand

grabbingsand — Fri, 18 Apr 2003 10:57:04 -0800

Exactly. You might even want to examine this post from only five days ago.

By: Samsonov14

Samsonov14 — Fri, 18 Apr 2003 10:58:31 -0800

What a gyp! I was expecting something more along the lines of Jesus jumping 10 buses on a motorcyle, like the part during the chase scene in the Gospel of Matthew.

By: byort

byort — Fri, 18 Apr 2003 11:00:52 -0800

Wasn't that jump shown in The Dukes of Nazareth? I personally wanted Pontius P. Coltrane to "get them Duke disciples...coo coo coo".

By: stifford

stifford — Fri, 18 Apr 2003 11:06:26 -0800

then Cooter denied the Dukes a third time...

By: xmutex

xmutex — Fri, 18 Apr 2003 11:07:54 -0800

Religion, it makes men do funny things. And not so funny things.

By: Pretty_Generic

Pretty_Generic — Fri, 18 Apr 2003 11:09:56 -0800

Faith allows us all to do the impossible. That's why I'm sniping people from this WiFi'd clock tower.

By: ZachsMind

ZachsMind — Fri, 18 Apr 2003 12:16:56 -0800

"Save the clock tower!" 1.25 Jigowatts! It can't be done! It can't! "All we need is a little ~~plutonium~~ faith, Doc!" Yeah, we were keeping the faith.. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, Keeping the faith-- *Zach gets shot in the back of the head* --Right, I'll do you for that! I'm invincible!

By: rushmc

rushmc — Fri, 18 Apr 2003 14:14:08 -0800

Can someone explain how this is anything but stupid? Well, it does give the local economy a boost when the hoards of tourists flock in. The flagellantes even sell their bloody whips when they're done with them (being finicky, I bought an unused one). Don't know if they sell the used nails or not (but everything has its price, no?).

By: dejah420

dejah420 — Fri, 18 Apr 2003 22:43:24 -0800

Ya know, all kinds of people do things in the name of their faith that may seem odd to people of other faiths. I mean, I wouldn't get nailed to a stick, or hit myself with barbed ropes, or take part in ritual eating of dead gods, or rub blue mud in my in my belly button to celebrate the new moon, but that doesn't mean it's not a perfectly valid activity for someone else. And to quote the hippie whom the crucified are imitating...Judge not, lest ye be judged.

By: Samsonov14

Samsonov14 — Sat, 19 Apr 2003 12:29:02 -0800

Pah. I double-majored in Religious Studies and Anthropology in college. When you first get into it, you start with the idea that all forms of religious expression are valid and meaningful. Sooner or later, though, you realize that there are some really stupid rituals. The dumbest ones are always either related to the afterlife or a coming-of-age ceremony. If you're jumping from a tower with a vine tied to your ankle, or beating yourself silly to emulate a martyr, you're doing something dumb. Just because it has a cultural significance don't mean it ain't stupid. This is especially relevant this weekend, as we celebrate the time when Jesus teleported out of the cave and found the rabbit eggs.

By: rushmc

rushmc — Sat, 19 Apr 2003 22:16:01 -0800

Ya know, all kinds of people do things in the name of their faith that may seem odd to people of other faiths. So it is your contention that any objective analysis of any given behavior becomes impossible once a claim of religious purposefulness is attached to it? Interesting. Tolerance (or "mutual respect") is one thing; blind acceptance of anything and everything and a refusal to admit the validity of comparison, quality, and innate superiority (which can be assessed, of course, according to a wide spectrum of criteria--aesthetic, utility, and "moral," for example) is something else entirely. But perhaps I've misunderstood you?

By: languagehat

languagehat — Sun, 20 Apr 2003 07:00:17 -0800

So it is your contention that any objective analysis of any given behavior becomes impossible once a claim of religious purposefulness is attached to it? I can't speak for dejah420, but my own contention would be that "Can someone explain how this is anything but stupid?" is not an objective analysis of religious behavior but a mindless and trollish comment. Combined with the link to a picture, it all adds up to a particularly lousy front-page post. Happy Easter!

By: rushmc

rushmc — Sun, 20 Apr 2003 12:57:34 -0800

One could certainly make that case, languagehat (though I am hesitant to go too far towards imposing my own notions of discourse on others, which has the effect of stifling and degrading the discussion). But I think that's a separate issue from the larger question of whether all things, notions and practices in existence must necessarily be granted equal status, or whether one may reasonably and usefully seek to distinguish among them.