Comic Genesis Forums

Madmoonie wrote:

Tom Mazanec wrote:Yeah, I can just hear it now..."I've forgiven him 488 times...just twice more and then KAPOW!"

Actually, my mother often said, "489.....just one more time and you gonna blow it, son."

Isn't there some ancient legend about a hero who vows to forgive a thousand insults? They think that means they can insult him with impunity, but the minute one of them comes out with the 1001st insult he's toast.

[...unWARP!!!]

Good evening.


Acolyte has it correct. The doctrine of the day that the Pharisim taught was that God could only forgive 3 times (¿?) based on an erroneous interpretation of the first chapters of the book of Amos:

"For 3 sins of ____, and for the 4th, I will not take away their punishment..."

Meaning, that if God didn't forgive 4 times, then they didn't have to either. Along comes Yeshua, and one thing He says, is:

"If your righteousness is not greater than that of the Pharisim and Tsadukim, then you will not enter into the Kingdom of God..."

And He begins with "don't murder, and don't THINK about murdering, either, which is just as bad and will carry the same divine punishment". Shimon THINKS he has caught Yeshua's "method" and tries to apply the "formula" to the Amos doctrine, and when he says if it's okay to forgive 7 times, he was really saying, "Hey, look at me! I've achieved perfection (7) in grace and mercy! I'm 233 1/3% more merciful than those Pharisim hypocrites!!"

"Look, Daddy! No hands!"

Yeshua probably shook His head and said, "233 1/3%? Shimon, compared to what little grace and mercy the Pharisim have, you'll have to get 16,333 1/3% better than them to reach perfection!"

Well, he actually said "70x7", i.e.:

"Your idea of perfection (7) has to be perfected STILL (x7) AND it has to reach completion/fullness (x10)."

Which, of course, is impossible without God's love inside you.


And that was today's Bible lesson, class


¡Zacatepóngolas!

Until next time, remember:

I

AM

THE

J.A.M. (a.k.a. Numbuh i: "Just because I'm imaginary doesn't mean I don't exist")

Good evening.

[WARP!!!]

I have a feeling that in practice though, this tends towards more of a reading that it is the capacity of forgiveness of christian theology that he is talking about. (in that anyone can be redeemed).

However doesnt that have to come through some form of realisation or repentance that what you are doing is wrong? What if they don't? Either due to maliciousness or just an inability to see it? (I guess it might be as you say, a case of balancing the scales)

And the term "sin" is making us think a little too far to the extremes here (I dont mean to sound agnostic, but I think bringing in religion here has sort of skewed or narrowed the scope of responses in regards to my initial question ),

To clarify: it doesnt have to be sinning but it could just be acting thoughtlessly towards others, im less interested in the extremes of "if this guy killed someone" or "if he sniffs during lectures" but the grey bit in between. If a person lets you down? If they hide to avoid responsibility? If they are reckless with other's safety (how reckless would they have to be? on a scale of playing catch with their property to late night drag racing with steamrollers ... or i dunno whatever )

Any of the above? ALL of the above? Give me some examples please! :)About where would you start to swap over from "ill let him get away with that" to "he should really change his ways"?

PS:
(Assume, for the sake of discussion that we arn't going to simply talk to the person, this is a strictly internal judgement call.)

I'd start by saying it's not my place as a Christian individual to judge another at all, no matter what. The points Jesus makes about forgiveness have to do with offenses against oneself, personally, not with various sins that others might commit. It's not for me to forgive the kind of sin you're talking about in general, because it's not for me to take offense at it in the first place.

That does not remove the responsibility of the State for keeping order. Nor does it automatically absolve one from being answerable to God for breaking His laws. But then it's for God to forgive -- or the Church as a body, which has been given the power to bind and loose.

I'm not sure why you're thinking only of extreme cases here. They weren't the only ones contemplated so far in the discussion, at least as far as I'm concerned.

no, i know they wernt, but im trying to emphasise on the borderline here thats all

*goes off to ponder what acolyte said*

keep em comming!

Good call, Blastech. Forgivness can ONLY come if the offender REPENTS (i.e., does whatever is in his power to avoid doing that wrong again). If he doesn't repent, you CAN choose not to hate the person, but you couldn't forgive him if you wanted to.

Rich people get respect

Respecting someone just because they have money is foolish. Demanding respect because you have money is even more so.

Respect is earned by CONDUCT. You prove you deserve respect, you get respect. Act like a pompous ass (like Rahan has been) and you get none from me.

I respect Warren Buffett (not to be confused with Jimmy Buffett) because he conducts himself with relative restraint and intelligence. I do not respect Paris Hilton. She's probably got more money than Buffett, but she is an egotistical socialite who acts like she's better than the rest of the world because she has more money than 99% of them.

That all is an admirable attitude, but let's be honest--- it doesn't reflect the reality on the ground.

Walk into a store, and I do mean ANY store, wearing a three-piece suit.

Now walk in a day later wearing greasy coveralls.

Evaluate the service you're given by the staff.

Wealth, fame and power DO bring respect. Maybe not the deep heartfelt respect YOU speak of-- but in day to day life, which one do you want more: the fellow across the table who sincerely admires your great depth of spirit, or the waiter who arrives in a timely fashion with your D@#$% drink?

RHJunior wrote:Wealth, fame and power DO bring respect. Maybe not the deep heartfelt respect YOU speak of-- but in day to day life, which one do you want more: the fellow across the table who sincerely admires your great depth of spirit, or the waiter who arrives in a timely fashion with your D@#$% drink?

RH is right.. H. Beam Piper pointed this out back in the 50's. It doesn't matter if they hate you, as long as they bow and scrape and humble themselves before you.

That's not FAIR. But it's the real world.

"I don't care if they hate me... so long as they FEAR me more."

RHJunior wrote:That all is an admirable attitude, but let's be honest--- it doesn't reflect the reality on the ground.

Walk into a store, and I do mean ANY store, wearing a three-piece suit.

Now walk in a day later wearing greasy coveralls.

Evaluate the service you're given by the staff.

See, here's the thing, Ralph:

I walk around in raggedy jeans and a t-shirt. I occasionally visit Neiman Marcus (a store so high-end, their Christmas catalog lists islands for sale). And whenever I go, I'm waited on politely by everyone in the store. Nobody stands guard over me, nobody's the least bit rude, and they give me perfectly clear directions when I ask for a department of the store.

I get wonderful service from waiters and waitresses; I get amazing and courteous responses from the staff at each hotel I stay in. Yet I look (as my beloved younger sister insists on telling me frequently) like a homeless man.

The clothes do not make the man, Ralph. They are the accent in the phrase of his attitude.

Yours truly,

The bemused,

Wanderer

RHJunior wrote:
Walk into a store, and I do mean ANY store, wearing a three-piece suit.

Now walk in a day later wearing greasy coveralls.

Evaluate the service you're given by the staff.

If you're in a service industry it is your job to treat customers with some degree of respect. If I get dumped on in a store because I'm not dressed like I'm made of money, that's not an establishment I'm going to come back to. If they can't perform that most basic duty, what guarantee do I have that they can do any other aspect of their job? (Car dealerships seem to be the worst offenders) I don't automatically treat someone better just because they're dressed nice. I know that's the exception to the rule in the world (and I don't really care) I generally treat everybody with some degree of respect until they give me reason to do otherwise. I know that's not the perfect Christian way, but I'm not a perfect Christian.

Ralph does have a point. So why doesn't Rahan get respect. Maybe he would in Sanctuary, but this is Freeman Downs. Everybody knows, or at least knows about, everyone else. And Rahan is a twit, And everyone knows that. Even his "friends" are just in it for the gravy train. It is a shame his father does not have a good long talk with him.

jwrebholz wrote:If I get dumped on in a store because I'm not dressed like I'm made of money, that's not an establishment I'm going to come back to.

Back during the dot-com boom, some of the car dealerships in the Silicon Valley got cured of that one. Attitudes were adjusted by just rumors of the letter to the general manager saying "I'm the billionaire dot-com CEO who your sales-droid wouldn't give the time of day to last week at your BMW dealership. I guess he didn't like my beard, jeans, and Birkenstocks. Enclosed for your information is a photocopy of the invoice from the Infiniti dealership where I just bought my new car that could have been one of your BMWs. You'll note I paid cash."

MikeVanPelt wrote:Back during the dot-com boom, some of the car dealerships in the Silicon Valley got cured of that one. Attitudes were adjusted by just rumors of the letter to the general manager saying "I'm the billionaire dot-com CEO who your sales-droid wouldn't give the time of day to last week at your BMW dealership. I guess he didn't like my beard, jeans, and Birkenstocks. Enclosed for your information is a photocopy of the invoice from the Infiniti dealership where I just bought my new car that could have been one of your BMWs. You'll note I paid cash."

BWAAAHAAHAAHAAAAA!!!

Attitude adjustment with a big chunk o' 2 x heavy.......LOVE IT!!!!!!!

S'aaruuk

jwrebholz wrote:If you're in a service industry it is your job to treat customers with some degree of respect.

Almost, but not quite.

It's your job to treat PAYING customers with respect. No money, no buying, no respect.

To quote from "Cabaret":

A mark, a yen, a buck or a pound,
a buck or a pound, a buck or a pound,
Is all that makes the world go around,
that clinking clanking sound,
Can make the world go round.

Of course, that means if YOU ever become poor, you're screwed.

Rather artistic, how it all balances out.

They used to tell me, "If you can't respect the officer, at least respect the uniform he's wearing." Same sort of thing. The man might not be worthy of respect, but oh, that lovely MONEY he's got... THAT deserves respect, alrighty!

And there you go.

MikeVanPelt wrote:

jwrebholz wrote:If I get dumped on in a store because I'm not dressed like I'm made of money, that's not an establishment I'm going to come back to.

Back during the dot-com boom, some of the car dealerships in the Silicon Valley got cured of that one. Attitudes were adjusted by just rumors of the letter to the general manager saying "I'm the billionaire dot-com CEO who your sales-droid wouldn't give the time of day to last week at your BMW dealership. I guess he didn't like my beard, jeans, and Birkenstocks. Enclosed for your information is a photocopy of the invoice from the Infiniti dealership where I just bought my new car that could have been one of your BMWs. You'll note I paid cash."

Mmm.

My problem with that - and I admit it is MY problem (ie, a personal problem) - is that such a situation requires you to actually get to KNOW the customer. That takes TIME. I don't GOT time. I want people to come at me just like the country comic suggests. "Here's your sign."

I want folks to wear signs. And clothing can be a sign.

Stereotypes exist for a reason. Good reason or bad reason, there's still a reason. And the original reason for stereotypes is to save time. I want to be able to judge and either welcome or dismiss a person in... less than a minute. Thirty seconds would be nice. That way, I can save my time for things I deem more important. Like reading RH's comic.

As an individual, I deeply resent the time I have to spend getting to know people I will (likely) never meet again, or ever care about. I feel like that time's been stolen from me. So I MUCH prefer that people wear their personalities on the outside, so I can save all the time I can.

RHJunior wrote:That all is an admirable attitude, but let's be honest--- it doesn't reflect the reality on the ground.

Walk into a store, and I do mean ANY store, wearing a three-piece suit.

Now walk in a day later wearing greasy coveralls.

Evaluate the service you're given by the staff.

Wealth, fame and power DO bring respect. Maybe not the deep heartfelt respect YOU speak of-- but in day to day life, which one do you want more: the fellow across the table who sincerely admires your great depth of spirit, or the waiter who arrives in a timely fashion with your D@#$% drink?

"Nothing succeeds like the <i>appearance</i> of success."

I'll offer a story from my father, and then a few personal observations:

As he advanced in his chosen profession (which he continued practicing in one form or another until medical necessity intervened shortly before his death), my father began visiting various facilities as part of a team. He heard some claims about responses to clothing, so at a time when he was part of a two-person team, he arranged for one of them to wear a dark blue suit, the other a lighter brown suit. (It was that kind of a profession.)

The results were this: Whomever was wearing the darker suit was addressed as the leader of the team. They changed suits, probably "traded roles", and the responses stayed consistent. Many people even replied to the wearer of the dark suit when the wearer of the light suit had asked the question!

Observations:

Clothing, particularly when selected for appearance (beyond an "I'm not a slob" message), is the first signal others receive of who we are and where we stand in relation to the world. Uniforms are worn for more than physical practicality - they're also an indicator of what you're seeing. (It may annoy some people, but I pidgeonhole anything worn more for appearance than physical as a "costume", including uniforms and suits. I also don't think there's anything wrong with wearing a costume in public.)

Clerks, salespeople, and anyone else performing in a service capacity will, when properly trained (like the Nieman Marcus people Wanderwolf has met) treat anyone as a potential customer until they have a reason not to. Poor training or management will be more biased. (And Ed, a well-run place like NM realizes that just because someone isn't buying now doesn't mean he/she won't later. It's easy to drive people away, very difficult to get them to come - or come back.)

Some places may try to market a "snob factor", snubbing those who don't appear to "fit in", expecting that to attract "their kind" of customer. I say they deserve them.

Changes in recent decades has forced many service industries to re-evaluate their criteria, the "letter to BMW" being a good example of why. As the baby boomers continue to age, this will continue to change.

My point? Not much, I suppose.

Then again, Rahan should get out of Freeman Downs for a while. Go somewhere where he can start fresh with people he hasn't met yet... and find out that his clothes and manners (or lack of them) aren't worth what he thought. (Gad, what I'd give to have him run afoul of one of Sanctuary's gangs!)

Don't be too sure of the outcome. Rahan swings a blacksmith's hammer on a regular basis, after all. Imagine their shock when the "city dandy" grabs one of them and breaks his jaw for him!

See children? Crime is hazardous to your health! Especially when your "victim" can pack you into a sardine can... bare-handed!