Post a picture, argue with me!

BadKen wrote:

Oh, I got that it was supposed to be PTSD cat from the cat's expression. To me it would have been equally humorous if the pictures had been dismembered corpses and bombed out city streets. To me it shows a fundamental disrespect toward victims of the atrocities of war. Using the pictures like that - and finding that animation funny - shows a disturbing lack of empathy to me.

Dark sense of humor ≠ lack of empathy.
I've never been that big on the "too soon" line of thought when it comes to humor. I mean, I get that some people won't find things like that funny, but that doesn't mean there's something wrong with the people that do.

Stengah wrote:
BadKen wrote:

Oh, I got that it was supposed to be PTSD cat from the cat's expression. To me it would have been equally humorous if the pictures had been dismembered corpses and bombed out city streets. To me it shows a fundamental disrespect toward victims of the atrocities of war. Using the pictures like that - and finding that animation funny - shows a disturbing lack of empathy to me.

Dark sense of humor ≠ lack of empathy.
I've never been that big on the "too soon" line of thought when it comes to humor. I mean, I get that some people won't find things like that funny, but that doesn't mean there's something wrong with the people that do.

This... the guy with the gun to his head... that particular image was a bad call... as that dude didn't live to have PTSD as I remember... but I get what they were going for and still wish that such things had not happened to the "flashback victims".

Demosthenes wrote:
Stengah wrote:
BadKen wrote:

Oh, I got that it was supposed to be PTSD cat from the cat's expression. To me it would have been equally humorous if the pictures had been dismembered corpses and bombed out city streets. To me it shows a fundamental disrespect toward victims of the atrocities of war. Using the pictures like that - and finding that animation funny - shows a disturbing lack of empathy to me.

Dark sense of humor ≠ lack of empathy.
I've never been that big on the "too soon" line of thought when it comes to humor. I mean, I get that some people won't find things like that funny, but that doesn't mean there's something wrong with the people that do.

This... the guy with the gun to his head... that particular image was a bad call... as that dude didn't live to have PTSD as I remember... but I get what they were going for and still wish that such things had not happened to the "flashback victims".

That's a particularly famous picture by Eddie Adams that is pretty synonymous with the brutality that war can bring out in a good person.

BadKen wrote:

Is it just me, or is this picture:

http://www.gamerswithjobs.com/node/2...

just not funny.

The whole juxtaposition of horrifying images from the Vietnam war and a silly cat picture kind of makes me sick. Not just cringe, like, really upset. The fact that a couple people in that thread commented on how funny the picture was didn't help.

Every now and then, the sense of humor of some goodjers really puzzles me.

Noted.

I do not even think my work with PTSD sufferers? Victims? or whatever euphemism du jour; colors that unfunny to me. It might just be how trite it is. It is a bit like when there was a meme about playing flashes of crappy but popular movies in front of Alex-Malcolm McDowel.

KingGorilla wrote:

I do not even think my work with PTSD sufferers? Victims? or whatever euphemism du jour; colors that unfunny to me. It might just be how trite it is. It is a bit like when there was a meme about playing flashes of crappy but popular movies in front of Alex-Malcolm McDowel.

Having a touch o' the PTSD and being a bit sensitive to the topic, I found it f*cking hilarious.

Reaper81 wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

I do not even think my work with PTSD sufferers? Victims? or whatever euphemism du jour; colors that unfunny to me. It might just be how trite it is. It is a bit like when there was a meme about playing flashes of crappy but popular movies in front of Alex-Malcolm McDowel.

Having a touch o' the PTSD and being a bit sensitive to the topic, I found it f*cking hilarious.

Sometimes the more painful something is, the more one aches to laugh about it.

wordsmythe wrote:
Reaper81 wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

I do not even think my work with PTSD sufferers? Victims? or whatever euphemism du jour; colors that unfunny to me. It might just be how trite it is. It is a bit like when there was a meme about playing flashes of crappy but popular movies in front of Alex-Malcolm McDowel.

Having a touch o' the PTSD and being a bit sensitive to the topic, I found it f*cking hilarious.

Sometimes the more painful something is, the more one aches to laugh about it.

This is why I can't stop telling jokes and funny stories at funerals. That episode of Home Improvement where Jill's dad dies and Randy is cracking jokes constantly, upsetting everyone else? Totally me. Helps me deal with it.

Until he gets cancer... then we're all paying for it with his cushy Congressional health benefits.

EDIT: Assuming he wins, of course.

Either way, can I assume, based on this statement from him that he is not a Christian? That'd make him an intriguing GOP candidate.

Demosthenes wrote:

Either way, can I assume, based on this statement from him that he is not a Christian? That'd make him an intriguing GOP candidate. :P

Roman Catholic, in fact.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_L...

Tanglebones wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:

Either way, can I assume, based on this statement from him that he is not a Christian? That'd make him an intriguing GOP candidate. :P

Roman Catholic, in fact.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_L...

And yet... not OK with giving to others in need. Clearly Christ was just winging that part and regretted it later.

Demosthenes wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:

Either way, can I assume, based on this statement from him that he is not a Christian? That'd make him an intriguing GOP candidate. :P

Roman Catholic, in fact.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_L...

And yet... not OK with giving to others in need. Clearly Christ was just winging that part and regretted it later.

I had a former coworker who once told me, with a straight face, that Jesus was a free market capitalist.

People can go through amazing mental gymnastics to validate their beliefs.

ruhk wrote:

I had a former coworker who once told me, with a straight face, that Jesus was a free market capitalist.

People can go through amazing mental gymnastics to validate their beliefs.

They aren't validating their beliefs. They're just making sh*t up to justify how they already think and act. That's why we have garbage like the "gospel of prosperity."

I'm going to quote a great British-Swedish philosopher:

"Cos cognitive dissonance is a bitch." (Sure it was in a completely different context, but hey.)

OG_slinger wrote:
ruhk wrote:

I had a former coworker who once told me, with a straight face, that Jesus was a free market capitalist.

People can go through amazing mental gymnastics to validate their beliefs.

They aren't validating their beliefs. They're just making sh*t up to justify how they already think and act. That's why we have garbage like the "gospel of prosperity."

I'm not saying he was objectively validating his belief, but rather that he was trying to validate it to himself- trying to square his love of money with his worship of a Bronze Age hippy... Which, yes, involved making up a bunch of sh*t.

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/AgH2al.jpg)

IMAGE(http://24.media.tumblr.com/d3b3062e9979843930d910b80f7d5c01/tumblr_mriqevMvDX1qcxbdxo1_500.gif)
IMAGE(http://24.media.tumblr.com/50e9ab03a0d2093a66a09daa314e93e1/tumblr_mriqevMvDX1qcxbdxo2_500.gif)

ruhk wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:

Either way, can I assume, based on this statement from him that he is not a Christian? That'd make him an intriguing GOP candidate. :P

Roman Catholic, in fact.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_L...

And yet... not OK with giving to others in need. Clearly Christ was just winging that part and regretted it later.

I had a former coworker who once told me, with a straight face, that Jesus was a free market capitalist.

People can go through amazing mental gymnastics to validate their beliefs.

Free Market Capitalism did not even exist then. Gesh people need to learn history and the Bible. Jesus avoided talking about government and its role and when confronted directly with a question about it he arguably dodged the question (Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar? Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's. See Matthew 22:17-22). He did pay taxes himself (See Matthew 17:24-27). In general you get the impression that economic matters were not something he really talked about beyond support for the poor, sick, and otherwise afflicted.

I think you can have a valid discussion on if Jesus's admonitions to care for the poor applies to governments in the same way as individuals, but most people that spout ahistorical ignorance like this are just not in that place.

The way I read that is that Jesus advocated separation of Church and State.

But, he was very antagonistic of the wealthy, the parable of the camel and the eye of the needle more or less states wealth of itself is sinful.

LarryC wrote:

The way I read that is that Jesus advocated separation of Church and State.

There was not any concept of that back then, so that is doubtful or if I am being harsh, ahistorical.

The concept in the ancient Western world was that religious and political affiliations had to align is some way even loosely, e.g. the Emperor's sacrifices at passover, and idea that predominated until at least the 18th century in the West. What Christ is saying is, IMHO is that those two things do not have to align as tightly as some might say, or in other words that you could acknowledge a political power in this world that is not holy (which is related to but not quite the same as separation of church and state as we think of the whole concept now, perhaps a necessary condition for it). There is a whole cultural overlay that I will not go into.

KingGorilla wrote:

But, he was very antagonistic of the wealthy, the parable of the camel and the eye of the needle more or less states wealth of itself is sinful.

Yes and no. It is unclear if he is talking about wealth itself or what wealthy people did at his time and place.

As a note, it is probable that at least some of the Apostles were wealthy in a kind of ancient upper middle class way. Luke was a physician; Matthew was either a tax official or a tax farmer in the Roman sense (a kind of subcontractor, to use the modern term, to the government that collected taxes and got to keep a percentage); Peter, James, and John, seemed to be in the fishing business together, and they seemed to have multiple boats from what little we have from the Gospels.

I think it is fair to say at a minimum wealth in the Gospels is at least treated as more of obstacle to a harmonious life with God than anything else. If there is a choice between serving wealth and serving God you should pick God. If there is a choice between serving wealth or serving your fellow man, then serve your fellow man. Personally I don't think He meant this as an absolute, in that people were still to work and make a living, rather, these things should be priorities in one's life.

There is also a economic and social/cultural layer to this where, at that time and place, the wealthy were suppose to spread wealth around more in a kind of, for lack of a better term, patronage setup, where the wealthy would take care of people in their community, many of which probably worked for the guy or were somehow economically tied to him, as a kind of patron or caretaker. Some of what Jesus said could be commenting on a breakdown of that structure also.

Anyhow you are correct when you said wealth was discussed, it it was not really in an economic sort of way.

BTW I don't mean to hijack the thread if this not keeping with it. Feel free to move along.

IMAGE(https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/7767855360/hC537D28F/)

That is a lot of word for: there basically are none.

Oh, it gets better, that is the student paper for WVU. Go Mountaineers.

Macklemore Luther King wrote:

I'm gonna have some dreams, only got 20 bibles in my pocket, make, make some speeches, looking to be equals, freedom's f*cking awesome!

D:

Tenebrous wrote:
LarryC wrote:

The way I read that is that Jesus advocated separation of Church and State.

There was not any concept of that back then, so that is doubtful or if I am being harsh, ahistorical.

The concept in the ancient Western world was that religious and political affiliations had to align is some way even loosely, e.g. the Emperor's sacrifices at passover, and idea that predominated until at least the 18th century in the West. What Christ is saying is, IMHO is that those two things do not have to align as tightly as some might say, or in other words that you could acknowledge a political power in this world that is not holy (which is related to but not quite the same as separation of church and state as we think of the whole concept now, perhaps a necessary condition for it). There is a whole cultural overlay that I will not go into.

Your second paragraph almost directly contradicts the thesis. You're right that the concept of a secular government divorced from a religious institution was foreign to Roman and Jewish people around the time of Jesus....and you're also right that Jesus directly challenged that. I don't think you can get any more explicitly pro "separation of Church and State" than Matthew 22:15-22. Clearly the story has many other layers, but that's one of them.

KingGorilla wrote:

But, he was very antagonistic of the wealthy, the parable of the camel and the eye of the needle more or less states wealth of itself is sinful.

Yes and no. It is unclear if he is talking about wealth itself or what wealthy people did at his time and place.

Either of these two readings -- whether you read Matthew 19:24 as referring to wealth or the actions of the wealthy -- typically result in the same conclusion.

The author of Matthew, specifically, reads especially antagonistic toward the rich. You find slightly softer stances from the other synoptic gospels, and even softer stances in John and the epistles.

Seth wrote:
Tenebrous wrote:
LarryC wrote:

The way I read that is that Jesus advocated separation of Church and State.

There was not any concept of that back then, so that is doubtful or if I am being harsh, ahistorical.

The concept in the ancient Western world was that religious and political affiliations had to align is some way even loosely, e.g. the Emperor's sacrifices at passover, and idea that predominated until at least the 18th century in the West. What Christ is saying is, IMHO is that those two things do not have to align as tightly as some might say, or in other words that you could acknowledge a political power in this world that is not holy (which is related to but not quite the same as separation of church and state as we think of the whole concept now, perhaps a necessary condition for it). There is a whole cultural overlay that I will not go into.

Your second paragraph almost directly contradicts the thesis. You're right that the concept of a secular government divorced from a religious institution was foreign to Roman and Jewish people around the time of Jesus....and you're also right that Jesus directly challenged that. I don't think you can get any more explicitly pro "separation of Church and State" than Matthew 22:15-22. Clearly the story has many other layers, but that's one of them.

KingGorilla wrote:

But, he was very antagonistic of the wealthy, the parable of the camel and the eye of the needle more or less states wealth of itself is sinful.

Yes and no. It is unclear if he is talking about wealth itself or what wealthy people did at his time and place.

Either of these two readings -- whether you read Matthew 19:24 as referring to wealth or the actions of the wealthy -- typically result in the same conclusion.

The author of Matthew, specifically, reads especially antagonistic toward the rich. You find slightly softer stances from the other synoptic gospels, and even softer stances in John and the epistles.

How do those relate to mega churches? If I see one more colosseum style church go up that totally NEEDS 8 choir rooms to practice in while they build a multi-million dollar compound... all while ignoring the homeless and needy in their area.... my brain might explode.

People see what they wanna see. If a person can see "Hate people" in "Love one another" and "Kill people" in "Thou shalt not kill," then pretty much anything goes, wouldn't you say?