The hour badly spent

people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, you so missed the point, god is extra dead, the k-state collegian is just a fancy blog, we are not amused, shut up kansas, convulsive hand-wringing, too christianey, doucherie, reality has a well-known liberal bias, christholesDecember 1, 2008 2:55 pm

Weeks ago, the Collegian’s "You Suck" comic depicted Jesus (yeah, I know this is old; it took my uppers this long to kick in). In panel 2, an old lady asks "What did you really want from humanity?" In panel 2, a swarthy, bearded, long-haired toga-clad Jew replies "That’s easy — all I want is for people to get along. Love ach other and be happy…it’s pretty simple."

Jesus goes on, in panel 3, with "Oh — also, don’t f**k panda bears. I can not stress that enough. Love and happiness, and no panda f**king. That’s all I ever really wanted to get across to people."

Comic portrayals of Jesus are hardly a big deal, and this one is fairly basic and pretty tame, if you ask us. Ask a Christhole, however, and you get a different answer. Ben Balman, a K-State graduate, wrote a letter to the editor.

I am writing in regard to the comic “You Suck” printed in the Collegian on Nov. 13. I was extremely offended by this comic strip when I read the Collegian Thursday morning. I did not find it to be even remotely funny. On the contrary I found it quite obscene.

In fact, I believe it crossed the line to downright blasphemy. Not only did it incorporate vulgar language of the worst kind, which would not be printed in any upstanding newspaper, it defamed Jesus Christ. As someone who proudly professes Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior, I was outraged, and not only me, but I know for a fact that many of my friends were deeply offended as well.

I can take a joke, but at some point we must draw the line and I believe that this comic crossed that line - blatantly and unashamedly. I am disappointed and offended beyond words. I expect better discretion by the Collegian staff in the future as far as what is printed. There is so much humor that could be printed that would be far less edgy and controversial — why must we resort to material that is crass, crude and inconsiderate of the faith of the majority of Americans? Is this merely to get a reaction like the one I am now writing?

There are both more appropriate outlets for the brand of so-called “humor” exhibited in this latest comic strip, as well as more appropriate alternatives to print in a campus newspaper. Until this comic strip ceases to be so obscene or ceases to be printed, I will now be removing the entire outer fold of any Collegian I pick up, if I choose to read it at all.

Was Balman for real? Even if he did have a point, he undermined it by making himself look stupid. We especially love the part where he disclaims that he “can take a joke,” then goes on to prove that he, in fact, can not take a joke. As far as "vulgar," since Balman failed to specify what, specifically, he took issue with, we’re going to wildly speculate what he means by "obscene." Which do you think ticked him off more: (1) the use of "f**k," which was redacted as shown, or (2) the blatant heresy that Jesus simply wants us all to get along? You decide! Keep in mind that it’s impossible to argue that Christ is in favor of pandafucking (unless it’s between pandas). We prefer to think that Balman’s biggest problem lies in not touching enough of that sweet, sweet "outer fold" he likes so much. "You Suck" agreed, publishing a very special issue:

"REMOVING THE OUTER FOLD! A new catchphrase craze!"

1. An insult: "Seriously! How did you get so stupid? Did someone remove your outer fold when you were a kid?

2. A threat: "If I ever catch you doing that on my bed again, I’m going to remove your outer fold!"

3. A circumcision euphemism: "…And apparently it also smells good. That’s why I’m glad they removed my outer fold."

Yeah, that wingnut’s letter was a comic gold mine; kudos to Nolan Fabricius and Jeff Brown for taking full advantage. They published another one:

Old lady: "Hey…did you guys hear that you’re blasphemous?"

Slacker (to Jesus): "I didn’t know that you gave your followers the right to go around condemning people."

Zing! At this point, I almost started to feel bad for Ben Balman, but in appointing himself some kind of moral beacon, he asked for it. And fundie humor is like a bottle that never runs dry; you can just reach for it over and over again. So, here’s to hoping that "You Suck" never loses its buzz.

[You Suck@K-State Collegian]

not afraid to be servicey, god is extra dead, the k-state collegian is just a fancy blog, too christianeyOctober 20, 2008 10:38 pm

Last week Amanda Moerlien pondered over a struggle that has intrigued mankind ever since man wrote down random shit and called it "The Bible."

We so often hear how wrong it is to focus on material objects. Even the apostle Paul said, “the love of money is a root of all evil.”
Instead of focusing on wealth, we should be focusing on God.
As great as that sounds, faith doesn’t pay the bills, faith doesn’t put food on the table and faith won’t let me sit on my butt all day doing nothing and still be successful in life.
So why do I have to choose between one and the other? Well, apparently, because the Bible tells me to.
“No one can serve two masters. For you will hate one and love the other or be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money,” according to Luke 16:13.
Truly we all live in a world hobbled by its own moral ambiguity. Which do you do, eat or worship? Live in sin, or die and go to heaven? Persecute Jews, or persecute Muslims? Is it possible to have money and still be an ethical person? I just don’t know. Does "successful" only mean having a lot of money, or is it more closely related to loving others deeply and being deeply loved in return? Would the righteous thing to do be to just mooch off others, like Jesus would do? I wish there was some sort of guidebook for stuff like this. Not afraid to be servicey, Bailey Embry sent a letter to the editor, out-Christianing Amanda and pointing the rest of the Gentiles to some helpful references.
Scriptures like Psalm 35:27, 37:4, 3 John 2:1, Proverbs 13:22 and Luke 5:1-10 clearly state that the God of the Universe does not have a problem with individuals possessing money.
I believe he has a problem when individuals have a "wrong" relationship with money as seen in Scriptures like 1 Timothy 6:10 and Luke 16:13.
If she knows her Bible that well, imagine how diligently she’ll manage a stock portfolio! When the Jesus market goes south, sell sell sell! Or was it Hell Hell Hell? I always get those mixed up. Does it really make a difference?

[Source: K-State Collegian]