| Raf 25.12.2007 12:00 |
link Haha, aww. |
| its_a_hard_life 26994 25.12.2007 12:08 |
Poor Jesus.... :( WAAAAAAAAAAAAAH. :'( I'll come to your party, Jesus! :) Teehee. |
| MamaQueen 26.12.2007 00:23 |
Actually I don't see it as a joke on Jesus. I see it as something similar to what really happens. Jesus is waiting for us to celebrate with him, to enjoy life with him, but nobody responds. It's our loss not his. |
| sparrow 21754 26.12.2007 18:27 |
aww poor jesus XD i love you! ill celebrate! but...you might want one of those number candles instead of the little things. otherwise the cake will be completely stabbed! haha |
| Music Man 26.12.2007 18:41 |
I would much rather enjoy life through commercialism than with Jesus. I think Christmas has been much improved over the past two millenia. |
| Raf 26.12.2007 18:49 |
<font color=666600><b>Music Man wrote: I would much rather enjoy life through commercialism than with Jesus. I think Christmas has been much improved over the past two millenia.Ditto. :P |
| Carol! the Musical 26.12.2007 20:08 |
That's the saddest thing ever. I would totally be in that jumpy- castle with him! :( xD |
| Deacon Fan 26.12.2007 20:45 |
Jesus was black and Jewish long before Sammy Davis Jr. made it popular. |
| Mr.Jingles 26.12.2007 22:01 |
<font color=666600><b>Music Man wrote: I would much rather enjoy life through commercialism than with Jesus. I think Christmas has been much improved over the past two millenia.That's pretty much why the whole meaning of Christmas has been lost. It's not an issue of religion, it's an issue of believing in sharing and giving to those who are not able to give anything to us except their appreciation. Christmas has become the season of the lavish spending where those who already have more than enough receive a lot more, the season of big earnings for the manufacturers and retailers, and the season where CEOs give themselves gigantic bonuses even when business profits are not as good. Personally I'm starting to get sick of all this bullshit year after year. I know it's awesome to get things we really want, but we also have to admit that many times there are things that we don't even need, that we want, or have the time to enjoy. It's absolutely fuckin' pointless. |
| Music Man 26.12.2007 23:11 |
It's absolutely fuckin' pointless.Well, if you argue that it is pointless, I would ask isn't everything, ultimately? The simple principle that every human operates under is self satisfaction. To satisfy a need, to satisfy a want, to satisfy a moral conviction, to satisfy cognitive dissonance - every single willful action a person makes is inherently selfish. Whether we like it or not, it is only dishonest to not acknowledge that. Well, what objectively makes philanthropy better, if it's ultimately for our own good? I suppose if you add up the number of people who benefit from a particular action, that's one way. Is that our duty, to maximize the effectiveness of our actions across as many people as possible? Or is it just the sheer efficiency of our actions: helping yourself is effective, but if you can help someone else by helping yourself, the total effectiveness is increased. Then again, by that, if I help myself a lot, it would be better than helping ten people a little. So how does this all work out? You think the meaning of Christmas has been lost, but I postulate that it has never existed. Humans are humans, and we will always be humans. Although morality is subjective (and effectively pointless), it still exists, and it will always be inconsistent with human nature and human behavior. One of the most difficult and confusing things we aim to satisfy is the cognitive inconsistency between the two. Ultimately, if there is something wrong with looking after oneself, we are all equally guilty, as that is all we ever do. Helping others is always a means, but never an end - no matter how we try to rationalize it. Sure, in this world, the rich get richer, but in all this absolute selfishness, the poor get richer too, don't they? I mean, this could possibly be the best situation for those in the worst situation - unless you argue that if everyone is equally disadvantaged, things are okay. Which, by the way, is also a valid point. That's why we have capitalism vs. socialism, and that's why both are valid perspectives. I'm not trying to give an excuse for everyone to be absolutely selfish, but there are a few loose ends here, aren't there? The next topic, of course, would be that if we only ever acquired what we "needed," we would still be nomads, hunting and gathering throughout the land. Maybe that is preferable. Who knows? I guess everything comes down to this quote from a wise man: "It's absolutely fuckin' pointless." Isn't it? |
| Mr.Jingles 27.12.2007 07:23 |
<font color=666600><b>Music Man wrote:I don't think you get really get my point.It's absolutely fuckin' pointless.Well, if you argue that it is pointless, I would ask isn't everything, ultimately? The simple principle that every human operates under is self satisfaction. To satisfy a need, to satisfy a want, to satisfy a moral conviction, to satisfy cognitive dissonance - every single willful action a person makes is inherently selfish. Whether we like it or not, it is only dishonest to not acknowledge that. Well, what objectively makes philanthropy better, if it's ultimately for our own good? I suppose if you add up the number of people who benefit from a particular action, that's one way. Is that our duty, to maximize the effectiveness of our actions across as many people as possible? Or is it just the sheer efficiency of our actions: helping yourself is effective, but if you can help someone else by helping yourself, the total effectiveness is increased. Then again, by that, if I help myself a lot, it would be better than helping ten people a little. So how does this all work out? You think the meaning of Christmas has been lost, but I postulate that it has never existed. Humans are humans, and we will always be humans. Although morality is subjective (and effectively pointless), it still exists, and it will always be inconsistent with human nature and human behavior. One of the most difficult and confusing things we aim to satisfy is the cognitive inconsistency between the two. Ultimately, if there is something wrong with looking after oneself, we are all equally guilty, as that is all we ever do. Helping others is always a means, but never an end - no matter how we try to rationalize it. Sure, in this world, the rich get richer, but in all this absolute selfishness, the poor get richer too, don't they? I mean, this could possibly be the best situation for those in the worst situation - unless you argue that if everyone is equally disadvantaged, things are okay. Which, by the way, is also a valid point. That's why we have capitalism vs. socialism, and that's why both are valid perspectives. I'm not trying to give an excuse for everyone to be absolutely selfish, but there are a few loose ends here, aren't there? The next topic, of course, would be that if we only ever acquired what we "needed," we would still be nomads, hunting and gathering throughout the land. Maybe that is preferable. Who knows? I guess everything comes down to this quote from a wise man: "It's absolutely fuckin' pointless." Isn't it? I do agree completely that as individuals it's hard to focus on others when we can hardly even focus on ourselves. We have personal needs, and it's important to fulfill them, and then we have things that we want, but there are times when this becomes a desire for excess that leads to nothing but a nearly complete state of selfishness. I'm not saying that people should be denied the right to have some luxury, what I'm saying is that people should question themselves more when it comes to spending for the sake of spending, and question if this truly makes them happy. I personally have found myself buying things that will end up collecting dust instead of me enjoying them, and I've come to realize that it's an absolute complete waste that I would have rather spent on something that someone needs or saved it for when it's actually needed. Once again, I absolutely agree that it's in everyone's right to do whatever they want with the money they earn, but many times I question the morality of those who claim to care about others, but then spend a shitload of money on things they will never use. Take for instance the sheer hypocrisy of your average hip-hop star who spends millions and millions of dollars on "bling-bling", but then they come out speaking against black opression while diamond mines in A |
| Music Man 27.12.2007 16:40 |
So, to clarify, you are only against wasteful luxury. If we use and enjoy the things we purchase, it is alright? |
| Mr.Jingles 28.12.2007 09:08 |
Wasteful spending is nothing but that... a waste. Lavish spending and excess is something that should be questioned individually. It seems like most people don't have the desire to stop for a moment to think if this is truly bringing happiness. |
| Sergei. 28.12.2007 09:32 |
That guy looks more like the cavemen in the Geico commercials. Any way, that's just the magic of RSVP. For pathetic fruitcakes like Jesus. ;)) |
| Carol! the Musical 30.12.2007 17:25 |
<font color=teal>Cookies?<h6>A Scientist wrote: That guy looks more like the cavemen in the Geico commercials. Any way, that's just the magic of RSVP. For pathetic fruitcakes like Jesus. ;))RSVP? 'Répondez s'il-vous-plaît'? ;P |
| Sergei. 01.01.2008 10:10 |
<font color=660066>Caddel<h6>MY DEAR BOY wrote:OUI MADEMOISELLE<font color=teal>Cookies?<h6>A Scientist wrote: That guy looks more like the cavemen in the Geico commercials. Any way, that's just the magic of RSVP. For pathetic fruitcakes like Jesus. ;))RSVP? 'Répondez s'il-vous-plaît'? ;P xD |