Kevin's Watch

To quote the great Barbarino: "I'm so confused!"

..the "object lesson" is a bait and switch as is the whole Chain letter is a bait and switch...the work of a devil.....MEL

Just wanted to say again, sorry for starting this all off - I certainly didn't intend to. In fact, I didn't expect anyone to even pay attention to my post. Syl posted:

Syl wrote:[Murrin] just voiced an opinion. It was almost more of an observation than an opinion.

And that's true - it's a bad habit I've always had. I always make stupid little observations, and people always take them to have more meaning than I intended them to. Most of the things I say are just throwaway comments - I don't feel strongly about these things, but people assume that I do. And it's my fault - I never make clear enough when I say these things that I'm not really bothered about it.

And I'll also just point out that I made no complaint about the letter, or the fact it had a christian message, I just pointed out that the topic - which I'd taken to be intended for everyone - seemed as though it would have more relevance to christians than to non-believers.


[And I hope I'm not keeping the argument going by posting this...]

Neo wrote:Back to the intent of caamora's post: no question that it's a good and honourable thing to try to be nicer to others (which may have the additional benefit of making one feel nicer about oneself). This is one of the reasons why Furls's Memorial Thread to her brother is so moving to me: Stephen was clearly someone who went out of his way to be nice to his fellow man and to act with grace even as others attacked and abused him, whether physically or psychologically. I certainly wish I had that same quality of character that Stephen had, to be able to "turn the other cheek" in stressful, angry situations. But I know that already many times in my life I've failed to keep my temper in check: I think I'm impressing people with how angry I can get, but I'm really just making an asinine fool of myself--if only I could see that while I'm doing it.

When Stephen became angry or upset, he viewed it as a failure on his part. And I would tell him, that it is normal to feel anger over something done to him or someone else. But, he would just smile that smile of his and say "Most do what they do out of desperation or fear or low self worth. I wish to help them, not add fuel to the fires of their problems. What would Jesus do?" And there you have it. He lived as he thought Jesus would wished him to live. And no matter the reason, the way Stephen lived was glorious. And it wasn't out of "Christain guilt" it was out of Love. Because, he believed that God is Love. He wanted to walk through life is that Love.

Thank you Caam, the message was beautiful, no matter where it came from.

Well said, Furlsy!

And Murrin, I might have overreacted to your original post - if so, I apologise.

Some people deserve darts thrown at them. Most of the time it's because they've lobbed giant lawn darts of disrespect and backstabbing at me. Nothing wrong with a little return fire just to let them know they won't get away with it.

And yeah, as a non-Christian, the whole point behind this "lesson" bugs me. It implies that everything was fine about the exercise until the people realized that they were inadvertanty, metaphorically, "injuring" Jesus at the same time they were "injuring" each other--and THAT'S what made it wrong to hurt each other. Why does Jesus need to be thrown into the mix in order to make the point that we should be nice to each other? Why can't we just say it is wrong to hurt each other simply because humans deserve respect--whether or not Jesus is inexplicably, metaphorically hurt in the process?

Maybe I'm missing the point. Or maybe I'm rejecting the terms in which the point is made. It just irks me that some versions of morality are based on supernatural reward/punishment [heaven/hell], rather than coming to the realization YOURSELF that people deserve respect. Why must a religious icon be invoked to drive home the point that we are each part of the awakening Consciousness of the universe, something so special and unique that it deservse respect in and of itself?

Or maybe that's what the religious icon really means: a metaphor for the Divine within each of us. If that's the case, then I've just talked myself into agreeing with the chain letter (damnit!).

lurch wrote:..I've been ASKED to THINK..You asked for it..here is what I Think....That document IS a Piece of Christian Propoganda.
It continues the grand tradition of Guilt. It fowards un truths as truth. The evil doers get to do whatever they want to do ..but us poor christians are restrained from doin what we want to do...HORSE CRAP!..On both parts!. There are LAWS that contain the uncivil. Those LAWS apply to EVERYBODY...the VULGAR and THE SELF RIGHTEOUS. Our founding fathers saw the WISDOM of a Secular Society.

The foundation of the message is BASED ON DECEIT. The "object lesson" does not lead to the following statements and their conclusions. THERE ARE Millions OF REASONS for NOT THROWING DARTS AT PICTURES OF A SELF DECIDED "ENEMY". THAT IN ITSELF is NOT the SOLEY OWNED TERRITORY of " CHRISTIANS". The HUBRIS involved is HILARIOUS!.. Placing Jesus's picture underneath,,then quoting scripture,,is a slite of hand trick that totally distracts from Jesus's message that was being quoted. Only a Devil is such a trickster.
This chain letter is meant for the soft minded, as it glorifys the soft minded.

Okay, okay, I'm the white tiger that just took a chunk of Roys skull out...maybe next time you'll be smarter when contemplating sticking your head into a tigers mouth...MEL

I hereby nominate this masterpiece as the single most incoherent and bizzare post on the Watch (and yes, I'm including Zeph's post about the time his sister couldn't poop).

hereby nominate this masterpiece as the single most incoherent and bizzare post on the Watch

I thought Lurch's post made perfect sense. He said a lot of things I would have liked to have said myself. After he posts, I usually have to try hard to come up with something relevant he didn't cover.

Cail wrote: I hereby nominate this masterpiece as the single most incoherent and bizzare post on the Watch (and yes, I'm including Zeph's post about the time his sister couldn't poop).

I second that.

Makes sense to me. Especially if you take the story as a factual event (which I pretty much doubt ever happened). To prove his superior knowledge and piety he entrapped his students, intentionally setting up an image of Jesus to be desecrated.

Ok, ok, so it's not an actual event. The story's just used as a little "gotcha" to get you to think. That's fine. But the guilt trip to send it on is longer than the story. It doesn't do much for us non-believers, but for believers that might think differently... it pretty much calls them bad people.

We can all agree that we should all be better towards eachother. Except for Malik. Where's my darts?

Syl wrote:To prove his superior knowledge and piety he entrapped his students, intentionally setting up an image of Jesus to be desecrated.

And the problem with that is????? It's called teaching.

What concerns me is your choice of words Syl. "Entrapped"? Come on man, the students were in a class. Superior knowledge? Duh, teachers usually do have superior knowledge compared to their students.

I understand why Caamora was upset.

If it were a real life situation, the kids did something wrong, yes? I feel it's pretty safe to say that throwing darts at Jesus is wrong*. And they did so at the behest of their teacher. He used a position of trust and authority to get others to do something they would be ashamed of, something they pretty much would never have done on their own. That's entrapment.

Like I said, that's if it was a real life situation. Obviously (I hope), it's not. It's just a little parable. The issue of the teacher being right or not never occured to the person writing it, thus not really existant except to those of us who... look at the unintended consequences.

Here's a better one (or maybe just a more extreme one):

A teacher takes his seminary class out to the field next to the church. Tied to tree is an effigy of Osama Bin Laden. The teacher hands out baseball bats, some kerosene, and a lighter. A few minutes later, the effigy is on fire and whacked around pretty good. The teacher takes out a fire extinguisher, puts out the effigy, lowers it to the ground, and tells Susie to take off the hood. Under the hood she finds... Bobby, the most popular kid in school! Boy, they sure learned their lesson. (I wanted to go with a more existential ending and have every student see their own face under the hood, but that seemed too hokey).

*When I was studying Hebrew ('96), an istructor of mine handed out a photocopied newspage to the class. I was kind of phasing out, so in one of the pictures, I drew an eyepatch, some devil horns, a moustache, and such on some guy. My instructor looks at my page, looks at me and says, "You know who that is?" I look at the caption. "Itzak Rabin," I say. It took me a minute to realize he wasn't just checking my reading comprehension, and then a few seconds more to realize how that would've been considered offensive. Yeah, I felt pretty bad after that.

[admin edit]

Yes, I've edited lurch's post. Yes, I still have it. No, I will not repost it until mods and admins have a discussion about it.

Though I'd chosen not to post in this topic ('til now) I've been reading with interest.

I for one would like to see it.(Lurch's edited post)

I'm an adult, I can handle it.

It's not nice.

It's pathetic. If debate about caam's original post was ever appropriate, that kind of raving certainly isn't. I can actually hear flecks of foam dropping from lurch's mouth onto the keyboard as he types.

The top thread in this forum should probably be required reading.
kevinswatch.ihugny.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=6644
I think caam had something like the following in mind. I'm putting a lot of words into her mouth, and I hope I don't go too far in her name. But, not expecting certain reactions, she didn't mull this over as much as I have now.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Something for Christians to think about


I just got this, and it made me think about the Christian I am, and the Christian I want to be. In this world that's always trying to drive me crazy, it's easy to forget what Jesus said. This method the teacher used is very powerful. Seeing what they did to the picture of Jesus reminded the students what Jesus said we are actually doing to him when we hurt others.

And the part about not forwarding this to others reminds us of Peter denying Jesus three times before the cock crowed. (That was Peter, wasn't it? F&F) OK, maybe chain emails are nasty and this doesn't need to be forwarded to everybody in my address book. So I thought I'd share it this way, where nobody has to bother waiting to see what's being received in their Inbox, and those who don't like it don't have to waste time reading and deleting it. The point is, I'm proud of my beliefs, and I'm not going to be reluctant to say so.
--------------------------------------------------------

Yeah, there might be less hard feelings if caam had done that. Make it all clear from the beginning. This is, after all, a debate forum.

OTOH, can't we occasionally give people the benefit of the doubt, and not assume we're being personally attacked whenever someone posts something that doesn't reflect our beliefs? Does lurch really think caam's post was aimed at him and/or those who do not believe what caam believes? Clearly he isn't able to see the message Cho and I are talking about through the religion he doesn't believe, but it's also interesting that his ego demands that he is the center of attention, and such a post can only be aimed at him.

This reminds me of a Beatles thread Foul started a while ago. He's a Beatles freak, as all should be, and just posted something about how he thinks they're great. Somebody, I think theDespiser, immediately has to post how the Beatles are overrated, yadda yadda. When somebody's posting about something they like, is it necessary to, to put it diplomatically, give an opposing view? Can't we just let people say they like something without trying to tear them down?

..Whoa there...MY edited post is a line item by line item rebutt of the Chain Mail Letter..Caams original post is a simple copy and paste of a chain mail letter. I saw no remarks by Caam indicating a heavy belief one way and or another..she asks what do you think.

I did not rebutt any post other than the line by line Chain Mail Letter. The focus of " foaming at the mouth" has been the Chain Mail Letter. If any poster transports their conclusions of the ChaiMail Letter into and thru their life experiences, thats their business. Good for you..but apparently when I do the same, its not PC . I'm not sensitive...yea, well,, the Insult to my intelligence that the Chain Mail Letter represents to me , tells me i have plenty of nerve endings. I don't believe that I countered any line item of the chain mail letter with any more "energy" than the intended "energy" of the line item itself.,,,,,,MEL

Maybe you should have read the whole thread.

caamora wrote:Wow, you guys just blow me away!

I thought this was something that everyone could get something out of. At the very least try to love eachother a little more.

Seems that all it provoked was more darts - especially at Christianity.

I posted something I thought was very beautiful. I had hoped that people would see it for the good intention it was meant for, not to question its motives nor to start debate.

I'll be careful not to do it again.

In all seriousness, I am a little hurt.

..I did read the whole thread..thats why I focused my vitriol on the Chain Mail Letter. Did you read the Entire Chain Mail Letter??....MEL