3 ms·

Wanted to chime in and say the same thing, so thank you. It really irks me when people with little to no theological or historical background pretend to underst

by dvt 9y ago

Wanted to chime in and say the same thing, so thank you. It really irks me when people with little to no theological or historical background pretend to understand religious texts.

throwawayjava 9y ago
I'm pretty sure it was a light-hearted joke, not a serious theological thesis.
- dvt 9y ago
  Maybe I don't get the joke then. To me, it just seems to be purposefully inflammatory and edgy. As it turns out, it's really off-base, too.
  - throwawayjava 9y ago
    > Maybe I don't get the joke then. The juxtaposition of a cranky critic or unserious person becoming a near-absolute authority on the thing he's cranky/not serious about is a common comedic trope. E.g., insert joke about Satoshi creating bitcoin to make an ironic joke about the dotcom bubble and accidentally launching the first ICO. The Mel Books skit is not intended to seriously suggest that there were originally 15 commandments. And Satoshi probably wasn't making performance art about late capitalism. And Ecclesiastes wasn't written by a cranky atheist. It's a joke. > To me, it just seems to be purposefully inflammatory and edgy The commonness of this trope indicates that lots of people find it funny, perhaps especially when it's disconnected from anything that's important to them. But more importantly, no one is laughing at you, and the intent of this joke isn't to inflame. The author is using a relevant quote from a source, and leading into that quote with a light-hearted joke. The fact that this joke is about Ecclesiastes has more to do with the fact that the author is using a quote from that book (to make a serious point, and a point that's at least not incongruent with the original intent). The author is instantiating a common joke template in the context of a quote he's using the lead off a talk. That's all. > As it turns out, it's really off-base, too. No, it's not, because it wasn't a serious premise. You can tell that this is the case by the fact that the 20+ slides that follow this one are not on the subject of theology or christian/jewish history...
    - kaybe 9y ago
      Bitcoin as performance art is..just perfect.
azernik 9y ago
Theological background may indicate King Solomon; but historical and textual criticisms strongly indicate that: 1. Ecclesiastes was written during the Persian period, not during the early Judahite period 2. The coda (which is the only bit which conforms to the theology of canon compilers) is probably a later addition. 3. The author's philosophical viewpoint is strongly reminiscent of Greek Stoicism, and God and his existence is at most a peripheral concern to the author.
rhizome 9y ago
Nobody understands religious texts, that's why they all have competing interpretations.

by dvt 9y ago

Wanted to chime in and say the same thing, so thank you. It really irks me when people with little to no theological or historical background pretend to understand religious texts.

throwawayjava 9y ago

I'm pretty sure it was a light-hearted joke, not a serious theological thesis.

dvt 9y ago
Maybe I don't get the joke then. To me, it just seems to be purposefully inflammatory and edgy. As it turns out, it's really off-base, too.
- throwawayjava 9y ago
  > Maybe I don't get the joke then. The juxtaposition of a cranky critic or unserious person becoming a near-absolute authority on the thing he's cranky/not serious about is a common comedic trope. E.g., insert joke about Satoshi creating bitcoin to make an ironic joke about the dotcom bubble and accidentally launching the first ICO. The Mel Books skit is not intended to seriously suggest that there were originally 15 commandments. And Satoshi probably wasn't making performance art about late capitalism. And Ecclesiastes wasn't written by a cranky atheist. It's a joke. > To me, it just seems to be purposefully inflammatory and edgy The commonness of this trope indicates that lots of people find it funny, perhaps especially when it's disconnected from anything that's important to them. But more importantly, no one is laughing at you, and the intent of this joke isn't to inflame. The author is using a relevant quote from a source, and leading into that quote with a light-hearted joke. The fact that this joke is about Ecclesiastes has more to do with the fact that the author is using a quote from that book (to make a serious point, and a point that's at least not incongruent with the original intent). The author is instantiating a common joke template in the context of a quote he's using the lead off a talk. That's all. > As it turns out, it's really off-base, too. No, it's not, because it wasn't a serious premise. You can tell that this is the case by the fact that the 20+ slides that follow this one are not on the subject of theology or christian/jewish history...
  - kaybe 9y ago
    Bitcoin as performance art is..just perfect.

azernik 9y ago

Theological background may indicate King Solomon; but historical and textual criticisms strongly indicate that: 1. Ecclesiastes was written during the Persian period, not during the early Judahite period 2. The coda (which is the only bit which conforms to the theology of canon compilers) is probably a later addition. 3. The author's philosophical viewpoint is strongly reminiscent of Greek Stoicism, and God and his existence is at most a peripheral concern to the author.

rhizome 9y ago

Nobody understands religious texts, that's why they all have competing interpretations.