The original content on this blog is largely satirical. I ceased in the year 1764 to believe that one can convince ones opponents with arguments printed in books. It is not to do that, therefore, that I have taken up my pen, but merely so as to annoy them, and to bestow strength and courage on those on our own side, and to make it known to the others that they have not convinced us. Georg Christoph Lichtenberg. It is in the spirit of the above quote that I write. Who am I you may ask? My name is Erik Thorson. I created this blog for my own personal amusement. |
You've been warned.
FALSE
This was a satirical article.
PLEASE don’t let Algore know.
"His name is Sanskrit, and means: ``All affirmations are true in some sense, false in some sense, meaningless in some sense, true and false in some sense, true and meaningless in some sense, false and meaningless in some sense, and true and false and meaningless in some sense.'' He is an Indian Pundit and Prince, born of the Peyotl Tribe, son of Gentle Chief Sun Flower Seed and the squaw Merry Jane. Patron to psychedelic type Discordians. Patron of the Season of Confusion. Holyday: May 31. NOTE: Sri Syadasti should not be confused with Blessed St. Gulik the Stoned, who is not the same person but is the same Apostle."
There is no doubt that the Pope and Council weighed these teaching heavily when arriving at their conclusions.
We live in interesting times where satire is difficult to distinguish from truth.
We have a pope who bashes capitalism and tells others to solve homeless problems although he presides over the largest private landowner in the world.
We have a gay Muslim Marxist in the White House who hates the majority of Americans.
10 years ago, both of these would have been satire stories in The Onion.
Is this the Vatican Council where they decide to bring in Cousin Oliver?
Change “Pope” to “Presiding Bishop,” and you have a factual article about the Episcopal Church, which ceased being a Christian denomination years ago.
Thanks.
OMG! The Holy Father has now truly jumped the proverbial shark. This is the end.
It was pretty obviously satire.
But what I don’t get is — this is in the Religion forum.
How do we discuss satire in the religion forum under the religion forum rules?
I mean, the article misstates religious positions — obviously — because it is satire. But we can’t misstate positions.
And we can’t make fun of people, which is another aspect of satire.
And so far as I can tell, nobody is even trying to have a religious discussion of the ideas put forth in the satire, I presume because it would seem odd to actually DISCUSS a satire piece as if it had meaning.
What exactly can we do with a religious discussion of a satirical piece like this?
I’m waiting for people to come along and explain what the satirist really meant.
Sometimes it’s hard to tell the satire from the media’s deliberate misquotes.
Along the lines of the “seminews/semisatire columns. A commentary dancing with truths and filling in wild assumptions where any doubts may reside.
Heh...
That part isn't satire.