--- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote: > > Wow that poster in NYC proved it really IS the Age of Enlightenment. Thanks > for posting that. > > I just finished a book I've been chewing on for a while called "What Makes > the Brain Happy and Why You Should Do the Opposite". Among our cognitive > biases is our very strong unconscious one to assign a conscious agency behind > random events. Some neuro scientists believe it is from the evolutionary > advantage of always assuming a twig snap is a tiger cuz if you are wrong, so > what, but if you are right... > > We do it automatically telling ourselves an instant story to explain that > events not only had meaning, but that they were directed by an outside > conscious agency. It is one of the reasons religious explanation feels so > right to people. Deeply right. Irrefutably right. Just so damn right! > > But in studying the specific ways that we have cognitive gaps and biases we > can begin to transcend our predisposition for taking the stories we create > seriously without viewing them in a more artistic light. > > I am a fan of the mythology of Christmas with its images in the same > nostalgic way I enjoy It's A Wonderful Life each year. When it gets weird is > when a beautiful artistic myth is taken to be a factual truth about ultimate > reality. It wasn't built for that, which is why it is so easy to satirize. > > Speaking of that I was considering how consensual the whole Holy Ghost > hook-up was back in the day...I mean if a boss comes on to an employee we cry > foul and bust him for coercion. I think the whole Mary story is ripe for a > feminist retelling as a tragedy. What choice did she really have when the > creepy uncle of the Triune God made a play for her? Did he during what must > have been a fairly clumsy seduction remind her of what he did to the > dinosaurs, or was it like the greatest Justin Bieber concert display but in > the end he takes her back to the dressing room? Did he at least let her > finish or was it just a typical wham bam thank you mam? Did she feel obliged > to fake it to sooth his monstrous ego. "Oh baby, that was divine!"
Now if that isn't just the juiciest wiggling worm that was ever put on a fish hook and left to dangle out there I don't know what is. And you know he'll bite too, don't you? > > These are the questions that swirl around my head as I gaze on my nativity. > Did Mary know what he son was headed for when she signed up her uterus for > this project, or was it presented like a Hollywood script with a lot of pages > at the end with TBD at the top? Did her youth and inexperience, her cultural > deference to men limit her ability to ask how it all ends before she signed > on? What if she had told him she had a headache that night, would he have > been a gentleman? Gosh Curtis, you are just loving this wayyy too much. Aren't you glad Christmas has given you such a ripe opportunity to go to town like this? > > And having been around a few babies in my time, when Mary changed his diaper > did even the Oxen rear up their heads and lumber out of the manger grunting > "damn that holy guacamole is nasty!" Over the top now Curtis. You are becoming much clearer to me, after this little observational and colorful post, and we aren't even having a discussion. We don't need to, you're letting it all hang out. > > > > > --- In [email protected], turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "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... > > >
