Keep your Jesus off my Penis

rhoenix · Post by **rhoenix** » 2006-05-05 08:43am

I found this link on another forum I frequent, and watched it twice in a row.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 6629602387

I think I'll watch it again.

Anguirus · Post by **Anguirus** » 2006-05-05 08:50am

Wow, was that funny! Went on a little long, but still great.

Max · Post by **Max** » 2006-05-05 04:37pm

HAhahaha, that made my day. Thanks!

outcast · Post by **outcast** » 2006-05-05 08:58pm

keep your jesus off my penis and i'll keep my penis off of you!

Noble Ire · Post by **Noble Ire** » 2006-05-05 11:17pm

Brilliant.

A shame that the people its directed towards would be turned off immediately by the title. Of course, its not liked they'd listen anyways; common sense is the antithesis of "faith".

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2006-05-06 09:30am

Yeah, I got sent this a good while ago, pretty entertaining. Not really science, logic or morality, though.

Sriad · Post by **Sriad** » 2006-05-06 04:10pm

Rye wrote:Yeah, I got sent this a good while ago, pretty entertaining. Not really science, logic or morality, though.

What're you talking about, it's the golden rule in song!

kc8tbe · Post by **kc8tbe** » 2006-05-07 11:26am

I didn't think it was all that good. It didn't make me laugh, and I couldn't show it to any theist friends because its horribly offensive. Perhaps just not my style.

Pick · Post by **Pick** » 2006-05-07 11:30am

"Horribly offensive"?

All righty... .

I thought it was brilliant. It doesn't matter if it's not a good conversion tool --we're allowed some amusement too

.

Zero · Post by **Zero** » 2006-05-07 11:45am

I don't see how it could be all that offensive. Just by use of the word penis, or what? It doesn't say anything in there that isn't true, so if it's offensive to your theist friends, then they're probably morons anyways.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2006-05-07 12:03pm

kc8tbe wrote:I didn't think it was all that good. It didn't make me laugh, and I couldn't show it to any theist friends because its horribly offensive. Perhaps just not my style.

I'd suggest growing a thicker skin. This is relatively mild compared to some of the stuff that gets posted on the board.

kc8tbe · Post by **kc8tbe** » 2006-05-07 12:16pm

Not offensive to me, offensive to many religious people I know.

Reasons it could be considered offensive to a religious person:
1. Scantly clad man singing blasphemy while wearing religious iconography.
2. Gratuitous references to the mail genital organ.
3. What would your Grandma think?

Omega-185 · Post by **Omega-185** » 2006-05-07 02:36pm

kc8tbe wrote:2. Gratuitous references to the mail genital organ.

I didn't realise that letters and packages have a penis

Anyway the song was great and made some good points. I am tempted to show this to a couple of some of my more religious friends. I also doubt they would find it very offensive.

The Guid · Post by **The Guid** » 2006-05-07 04:20pm

1. Scantly clad man singing blasphemy while wearing religious iconography.

You call THAT scantly clad?

Promise me something... never search the internet far...

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2006-05-07 04:22pm

kc8tbe wrote:Not offensive to me, offensive to many religious people I know.

Reasons it could be considered offensive to a religious person:
1. Scantly clad man singing blasphemy while wearing religious iconography.
2. Gratuitous references to the mail genital organ.
3. What would your Grandma think?

You haven't been using the internet for very long, have you?

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2006-05-07 05:01pm

Fan-tast-ic. Almost makes me want to download Google's silly video player so I can download the video to my computer.

Noble Ire · Post by **Noble Ire** » 2006-05-07 05:28pm

General Zod wrote:
kc8tbe wrote:Not offensive to me, offensive to many religious people I know.

Reasons it could be considered offensive to a religious person:
1. Scantly clad man singing blasphemy while wearing religious iconography.
2. Gratuitous references to the mail genital organ.
3. What would your Grandma think?
You haven't been using the internet for very long, have you?

To be fair, he's probably right. As I pointed out before, this song isn't accessible to the people who need its message the most, simply because most of them are so incredibly uptight and self-righteous. Of course, even if it was in a more "pallitable" form, they still probably wouldn't want to watch or understand it. At least this way, it's funny to those people who are open-minded enough to actually watch it.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2006-05-07 06:00pm

Noble Ire wrote: To be fair, he's probably right. As I pointed out before, this song isn't accessible to the people who need its message the most, simply because most of them are so incredibly uptight and self-righteous. Of course, even if it was in a more "pallitable" form, they still probably wouldn't want to watch or understand it. At least this way, it's funny to those people who are open-minded enough to actually watch it.

Frankly, I didn't find it very funny at all. But more to my expectations of humor are somewhat different, and this was really rather mediocre imo. Plus, compared to anything you'll find simply by using google or yahoo for any amount of time, this is extremely tame. Unless all you use search engines for is looking up recipes, addresses and occasionally checking email. (Speaking of which, I'm pretty sure I've received far more offensive email spam than this video).

rhoenix · Post by **rhoenix** » 2006-05-07 10:33pm

kc8tbe wrote:Reasons it could be considered offensive to a religious person:

Alright, let's see.

kc8tbe wrote:1. Scantly clad man singing blasphemy while wearing religious iconography.

While the "scantily clad man" and "religious iconography" parts of this I question for reasons of satire, what precisely was "blasphemous" about what he sang? I'm not trying to be insensitive here, I'm genuinely curious.

kc8tbe wrote:2. Gratuitous references to the mail genital organ.

And? Said male sexual organ was responsible for their being able to have those opinions in the first place. Not to mention the female sexual organ. Together, even.

kc8tbe wrote:3. What would your Grandma think?

Where did this come from? Do the religious people you know normally rush off excitedly to show Grandma every interesting link they find on the Internet?

Adrian Laguna · Post by **Adrian Laguna** » 2006-05-07 11:12pm

kc8tbe is reffering to deeply religious people as the ones that might be offended by the video. Why is it that people are expecting rationality from the reasons why they might be offended? We are talking about people that might* find the very concept of sex for pleasure offensive.

*Note here that I said "might", as in "a distinct possibility", as in "I'm speculating becasue I don't know these people kc8tbe is talking about".

(Adrian is totally not concerned about meing misunderstood. Yup, not concerned at all)

BTW - I like the video, it was funny, like 90% of the internet.

kc8tbe · Post by **kc8tbe** » 2006-05-08 12:30am

Omega-185 wrote:
kc8tbe wrote:
2. Gratuitous references to the mail genital organ.
I didn't realise that letters and packages have a penis Laughing

Unfortunately, about half of the letters in my e-mail inbox do.

The Guid wrote:
1. Scantly clad man singing blasphemy while wearing religious iconography.

You call THAT scantly clad?

Promise me something... never search the internet far...

Of course I've seen worse. Again, apply the Grandma test. My Grandma doesn't have the Internet, and she maintains a 1920's era idea of what "scantly clad" means.

rhoenix wrote:
kc8tbe wrote:
1. Scantly clad man singing blasphemy while wearing religious iconography.
While the "scantily clad man" and "religious iconography" parts of this I question for reasons of satire, what precisely was "blasphemous" about what he sang? I'm not trying to be insensitive here, I'm genuinely curious.

Perhaps we are thinking of two different definitions of blasphemy. I'm thinking of blasphemy, as in something profane or irreverent; not heresy, which is something that goes against the teachings of a particular religion. In my book, simply mentioning "Jesus" and "penis" in the same sentence is blasphemous.

rhoenix wrote:
kc8tbe wrote:
2. Gratuitous references to the mail genital organ.
And? Said male sexual organ was responsible for their being able to have those opinions in the first place. Not to mention the female sexual organ. Together, even.

Who are "they" and what does the vagina have to do with the word "penis" being offensive?

rhoenix wrote:
kc8tbe wrote:
3. What would your Grandma think?
Where did this come from? Do the religious people you know normally rush off excitedly to show Grandma every interesting link they find on the Internet?

Noble Ire wrote:
To be fair, he's probably right. As I pointed out before, this song isn't accessible to the people who need its message the most, simply because most of them are so incredibly uptight and self-righteous. Of course, even if it was in a more "pallitable" form, they still probably wouldn't want to watch or understand it. At least this way, it's funny to those people who are open-minded enough to actually watch it.

My point precisely. If my Grandma can't stomach it, then chances are that deeply religious people aren't going to like it very much either. I personally didn't find it very funny (though some of my non-religious friends did), and I can't show it to my religious friends because they will probably find it offensive.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2006-05-08 12:53am

Hrm, depending on the Grandma... applying the Grandma test, Asian people, particularly Japanese people, are offensive. Clearly, that is a great test of what is actually offensive.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2006-05-08 09:51am

kc8tbe wrote: My point precisely. If my Grandma can't stomach it, then chances are that deeply religious people aren't going to like it very much either. I personally didn't find it very funny (though some of my non-religious friends did), and I can't show it to my religious friends because they will probably find it offensive.

Do you and your religious friends find wrestling offensive as well? Both of those sports have equally, if not more so scantily clad men in them. And wrestling has scantily clad men grappling each other, often in very homo-erotic ways. Did I mention the constant references to various bodily functions & genetalia present in wrestling? I'm sure I can find several other examples of things beside wrestling that 'your' grandma might find offensive. Frankly, your criteria for judging something as offensive are idiotic.

Trogdor · Post by **Trogdor** » 2006-05-08 10:09am

General Zod wrote:Frankly, your criteria for judging something as offensive are idiotic.

kc8tbe wrote:Not offensive to me, offensive to many religious people I know.

We already know that many religious people have idiotic criteria for what's offensive. I don't see any point in insulting this guy for other people's dumb standards, though.

kc8tbe · Post by **kc8tbe** » 2006-05-08 10:27am

General Zod wrote:
Do you and your religious friends find wrestling offensive as well? Both of those sports have equally, if not more so scantily clad men in them. And wrestling has scantily clad men grappling each other, often in very homo-erotic ways. Did I mention the constant references to various bodily functions & genetalia present in wrestling? I'm sure I can find several other examples of things beside wrestling that 'your' grandma might find offensive. Frankly, your criteria for judging something as offensive are idiotic.

First, let me point out that I have friends who are religious and aren't offended nearly as easily as my Grandma. One actually quite enjoyed the video. Second, why keep assuming that I'm offended by everything a fundamentalist Christian is offended by, even though I've clearly articulated that this isn't the case? That said, I have plenty of friends who are deeply religious and are offended very easily indeed.

There a plenty of things that fail the Grandma test but are not very offensive to most people. A mixed race couple, for example. Also, it so happens that the things that offend Grandmas also tend to offend the Christian Right. So when something does pass the Grandma test, I can be pretty certain that it won't offend my fundie friends either.

Do my religious friends find wrestling offensive? Some find staged wrestling, like WWE, offensive but think competitive wrestling is OK. Some are offended by both. Some are offended by neither. And while wrestlers' "various bodily functions & genetalia" may be more apparent than those of other athletes, they typically don't "reference" them verbally.

Gil Hamilton wrote:
Hrm, depending on the Grandma... applying the Grandma test, Asian people, particularly Japanese people, are offensive. Clearly, that is a great test of what is actually offensive.

Both my Grandparents were in WWII, and neither finds "Asian people" particularly offensive. Actually, my Grandma really likes Asian cuisine. Now if a Japanese person dressed up in a WWII uniform, exposed his chest and midriff, and told my Grandparents to keep their western ways off his penis... that they might find offensive.

If we're all so hung up on Grandmas, try applying a different test instead. Would the New York Times print an article about this video on the front page? Would Fox News show the video on daytime TV? The author of the video certainly isn't required to make the video non-offensive to all people everywhere. However if he ever intended fundamentalist Christians (the subject of the video's satire) as an audience, he should have made the video more tasteful to them.