Ship of Fools: Jesus and the motel

Thread: Jesus and the motel Board: The Laugh Judgment / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=61;t=000012

Posted by Simon (# 1) on :

Joke submitted by Classical Music Freak, Mike, Surly Girl, jgk, Charismanic, tallmarko, macfluffy, Bazza, Mark, strathclydezero and Alien:

Jesus walks into a motel, throws a bag of nails on the counter and says, "Can you put me up for the night?"

[ 07. July 2005, 00:05: Message edited by: Simon ]

Posted by Flausa (# 3466) on :

This is a complete groaner for me. Not sure where to put that on the funny scale, because my reaction is similar to my husband's bad puns. Grooooooooooaaaaaaaaan.

Posted by Left at the Altar (# 5077) on :

I'm surprised that it took so many people to submit such a small gag.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

A wise strategy: fewer rotten tomatoes will hit each individual that way.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

My reaction: [Confused]

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

This is just a religiousised version of the old joke about the man who goes to a motel where the sign says 6 shillings per night or 4 shillings if you make your own bed. He chooses to make his own bed and is given some wood and a bag of nails.

Question, was it altered to offend or just to survive longer. I think the later and as such the person who did it will I think needs extra time in purgatory.

Jengie

Posted by starbelly (# 25) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
This is just a religiousised version of the old joke about the man who goes to a motel where the sign says 6 shillings per night or 4 shillings if you make your own bed. He chooses to make his own bed and is given some wood and a bag of nails.

Question, was it altered to offend or just to survive longer. I think the later and as such the person who did it will I think needs extra time in purgatory.

Jengie

Not sure it is related to that joke at all, apart from the Motel and the fact nails are involved. The humour is totally different, the Jesus version is a tasteless pun, but the bed one is just simply a poor pun.

Neil

Posted by Rat (# 3373) on :

It's one of those jokes that relies on shock value to startle you into laughing, isn't it? Fairly mild in this case, but the pun does make you go 'erk' a little bit.

Posted by Sarkycow (# 1012) on :

[Killing me]

I tried to get my vicar to use this as the icebreaker joke on one of the Alpha sessions, but he wouldn't... Mind you, he did wince when I told it to him!

It's the play on words that makes it amusing I think.

Posted by Lurker McLurker™ (# 1384) on :

I didnt think so many people would submit a joke which is, after all, just a pun.

Posted by Simon (# 1) on :

More people have sent in this joke than any other (so far). We've received it from 19 different people. There's obviously something about it that sticks in the imagination.

Posted by jlg (# 98) on :

It's short and the punchline is easy to remember. Even I could probably remember this one and I currently only know one joke well enough to tell it.

Posted by Ancient Mariner (# 105) on :

But what we want to know, people, is WHY you are NOT offended by a joke that relies on using the suffering of Christ as a touchstone.

We don't just want personal instant reaction. Some theologising, please, or this project will fail...

[brick wall]

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

Because it's so far from actually discussing the suffering of Christ. There's a huge disparity between what really happened to Jesus and what's depicted in the joke; that's the point of the pun, but that's also what takes the sting out of it. Christ's suffering was real, was immense, and the crucifixion of God incarnate was an earth-shattering event--this is just a silly pun. You have to know something about that earth-shattering event to get the pun, but the pun doesn't come close to impinging on it. God is so much bigger than this.

Posted by Gort (# 6855) on :

To be unoffended, one has to step outside the very subject that is held sacrosanct. Suspension of belief, if you will. I think most people when reading these jokes have already put their personal religous values on hold temporarily and expect the worst. It's a setup. The setting and format cause us to analyze them to death in preparation for a comment. Everyone knows that a joke explained loses its humour and nothing is left but dry comments such as "pun".

Timing and setting are everything. Take any number of the joke examples so far and try whispering them to an unsuspecting member of a congregation in the back pew during services and you will get an entirely different reaction than when shared with drunken mates in the pub.

Humour is a basic human method of dealing with the pain and horror of life. Also, all good humour is based on the misfortunes of others.

Posted by The Coot (# 220) on :

With this one again, initially I put 'not funny' and 'not offensive'. I suppose partly because I read the joke, it was just words, I didn't think deeply about it and I am not contemplative of Jesus' suffering of the cross every day - so it was quite meaningless. However, after reading the discussion, I thought, 'Uh yer. That's wrong to make light of the suffering of Christ' and had a pang of conscience. [Ultra confused]

I would definitely be pissed off if a non-Xtian tried to tell me that joke (Lick finger. Hold up to wind. Yep. Today I am a Xtian) and would give them my pissed off 'Yer anyway-' interruption as I do when people tell ethnic jokes in my presence.

Why should they get away with making fun of my God's Passion and Death?

This electronic medium is somewhat artificial: in the 'in person' medium you know who it is that is telling the joke, whether they are scornful or affectionate with respect to Christ and Xtians, which has a bearing on whether the teller is being mocking or just making an irreverent pun. How the teller intends the joke to be received affects how I receive it.

Posted by Newman's Own (# 420) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
This is just a religiousised version of the old joke about the man who goes to a motel where the sign says 6 shillings per night or 4 shillings if you make your own bed. He chooses to make his own bed and is given some wood and a bag of nails.

I think you are quite right. I think I would have found it more irritating had I not thought it an expanded version of that ancient joke - because jokes about Jesus' being nailed to the cross would not appeal to me.

I found this joke neither funny nor offensive - only boring. Sunday school kids would probably find it hilarious.

Posted by Marquis (# 9750) on :

This joke is from the movie "The Crow".

The main character has come back from the dead (nach) and is reaking revenge upon the evil doers who killed him and his girlfriend.

In the context of the movie, and with the delivery given it by Brandon Lee (RIP), it is a memorable and quite funny line in a rather scinister kind of way. [Smile]

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :

Not sure my reply is going to be particularly theological but ...

I didn't find the joke at all offensive and that's because it is so far removed from the biblical story. Jesus didn't walk into a motel, he didn't have any nails and he didn't asked to be put up for the night. It's so far from reality (ie as told in the Bible) that I can't take it seriously theologically.

And it's unbelievably corny! [Big Grin]

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

It's a very lame pun. In fact, it fails as a pun because no one actually uses "put me up for the night" or anything similar in the context of crucifixion. The reader has to supply the link from the vocabulary of putting up a picture frame, or bookshelf, with nails. If it was verbally clever, I might have smiled the first time I heard it, but it isn't, and I didn't.

Offensive? It scored about as highly as anything of this sort ever does for me (I gave it a 2). I wouldn't joke about Jesus' death myself, because it's something important to me, but I don't feel that my beliefs are challenged in any serious way by someone else's lame puns.

Posted by Marquis (# 9750) on :

quote:
In fact, it fails as a pun because no one actually uses "put me up for the night" or anything similar in the context of crucifixion. The reader has to supply the link from the vocabulary of putting up a picture frame, or bookshelf, with nails.

Er, but they do use it in the context of staying in a motel though! All puns rely upon the listener supplying a verbal link. That is what makes them puns, no?

Again, in the context of the movie that this joke is from, it works rather well, hence the fact people remember it, I would guess. It is offensive in a "I don't care wht you think about it" kind of way.

I'm a big fan of the film, so I could be iased though! [Biased]

Posted by Tigerlily (# 9782) on :

It's a pretty offensive joke, but I did get a chuckle out of it.

I suppose I laughed because it was so "naughty" and I know I'm not supposed to find it funny.

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
It's a very lame pun. In fact, it fails as a pun because no one actually uses "put me up for the night" or anything similar in the context of crucifixion.

Nobody asks to be crucified. I don't think it's required that the phrase be used the same way in both "sides" of the pun (to coin a term). This does in fact succeed as a pun. Not a great one, and mildly offensive, but it's still a successful pun.

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
I don't think it's required that the phrase be used the same way in both "sides" of the pun

Thinking about puns ...

I'd categorise this broad sort of joke into three classes:

I. Balanced. The natural meaning of the words applies equally well to be primary and secondary meanings. An example would be the 'Adventure trip for boys' joke. The same words "screw the boys" can mean either "never mind about..." or "sexually molest..."

II. Innuendo. The words can only properly relate to the primary intended meaning, but extraneous information makes them allude to a secondary meaing. An example would be 'The Pope's new camera'. "He must have seen you coming" refers to a swindle. You wouldn't actually say those words to mean "he must have taken a photograph of you masturbating", but it does enough to raise a mental association.

III. Contrivance. The reverse of the above - the words naturally relate to the secondary intended meaning, but allude to what the speaker is supposed to have as his primary intention. This joke is a contrivance. Jesus 'wants' to be crucified, but he says words that would actually only be appropriate if he were asking for a room.

Puns of class III don't work for me because they fail to create a situation where the character in the joke has a reason for using the words. The joke-teller, not the character, is speaking the crucial line. There is no credible motivation for it. An essential part of what makes puns funny is verbal cleverness, and unnaturally contrived dialogue is lacking in cleverness.

[I am now convinced I have too much time on my hands. Writing categorisations of puns FFS [Roll Eyes]

]

[ETA: italics]

[ 16. July 2005, 23:34: Message edited by: Eliab ]

Posted by Long-Johns Silver (# 1763) on :

This one cracked me up - possibly because I hadn't heard it before, possibly it was so ridiculous. - life of brian sort of level I think.

Posted by Fauja (# 2054) on :

It was a cheap shot if you ask me.
Not funny. Not witty. No value.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0