Jesus Jones v. Lucifer Williams. This Sunday, sunday, sunday!

Hey everybody! It's time for yet another edition of Dumb Quotes from the internet. I've considered labeling this "DQFTI," but worried that people would think it was some kind of ice cream reference.

Today we have the following Jesus fwd type quote. I really hate these, because I find very little more repulsive than forcing people to spam others by appealing to their religious nature. Also, they tend to be remarkably ill informed. Let's get to it.

The Greatest Man in History Jesus had no servants, yet they called Him Master.
Had no degree, yet they called Him Teacher.
Had no medicines, yet they called Him Healer.
He had no army, yet kings feared Him.
He won no military battles, yet He conquered the world.
He committed no crime, yet they crucified Him.
He was buried in a tomb,yet He lives today.
I feel honored to serve such a Leader who loves us!
If you believe in God and in Jesus Christ His Son . Write this on 10 peoples walls or just ignore but remember that Jesus said ... "If you deny me before man, I will deny youbefore my Father in Heaven

First off, I'm not sure how much I'd agree w/ "greatest man in history," but I'm sure that's just a matter of opinion. As such, I'll leave it alone. The problem I have is that this title was capitalized. What, grammatically speaking, does this mean? Are Jesus's initials GMITJ? Is that his official title? Greatest Man in History Jesus? Sounds vaguely like a basketball player. Or a WWE wrestler.

Greatest Man in History Jesus Jones! Coming to you live, from Renne Arena!!!! Watch him take down the Great Impaler, Red, Red, Lucifer Williams!!!

Seriously, though, I personally think Jesus would be irritated in being called the greatest man in history (especially in being given such a title), because that was exactly the opposite of his point. He was a normal man with normal failings. He had a great burden to bear and carried a message of hope, but he remained an ordinary man.

"he had no servants" also has to be wrong. Hell, someone brought his group wine at the last supper. That person was.... A SERVANT. Beyond all that, "master" and "teacher" were pretty interchangeable at the time. I'd be hesitant about reading too much into it.

"He had no degree." I'm almost entirely certain this is wrong too. Now, I don't imagine that Jesus went to University, partially because none were exactly handy, but the fact of the matter is that he'd risen pretty high in the ranks of the Jewish priest-type hierarchy. I'd guess he was a fairly well versed individual for the time and could probably hold his own among modern day theologians. Further, as I understand it, people in his position at the time were often called teacher.

I'm granting the "he had no medicines, yet they called him Healer," because, as long as we're going with the same source (i.e. the bible), a pretty big tenant of his being the Messiah was his being able to bring people back from the dead (also, leprosy).

"He had no armies, yet kings feared him" shouldn't count, in my opinion. Herrod didn't like threats to his power. It isn't like Herrod feared Jesus specifically. He just didn't like the idea of a Messiah trying to change the current regime. Plus, Jesus was a baby. Anyone who is scared of a baby is dumb.

"He conquered the world." Eh. Last I checked, there were a remarkable number of people and religions that do not follow Christ. Like Islam. The Hindus. Taoists. Shintoists. Native American spirit people. Oh, and Jews. I'm pretty sure that accounts for at least 2 of the 5 billion people in the world and one HECK of the land mass. Also, I think I'd be way more willing to give Rome, Constantine, and Paul more credit than Jesus, in terms of simple number of converts.

"He committed no crime." Really? Rome found him guilty of a crime. So did the Jewish leaders of the area. I'm pretty sure that we, as Americans who believe in the rule of law, ought to consider that enough. Sure, sometimes its possible for people who are innocent of crimes to be found guilty and killed (like what happens in America), but we should try to be consistent on this front.

"yet he lives today." Uh. I guess this is accurate, as long as you are REALLY willing to stretch the meaning of the word "lives."

"Leader" should not be capitalized. I won't even make a joke out of it. It's just stupidity based upon the mistaken belief that over-capitalization makes you sound more holy.

The last line is REALLY poor grammar, so let's fix that, before proceeding.

If you believe in God and in Jesus Christ, His Son, write this on 10 people's walls or just ignore it, but remember that Jesus said, "If you deny me before man, I will deny you before my Father in Heaven."

There, now we've fixed the grammar problems. Time to fix the idiot problems.

Who is really being denied in this post? Is a person denying Jesus if he elects not to spam at least ten people with incorrect and poorly understood drivel? I think not.

Here's what I think. I think a lot of people have a really high opinion of themselves and their own ability to understand God. Some might call it pride. I call it stupidity. So they write their uninformed messages like the one above and send them out to everyone they know, because they want to show everybody how remarkably holy they are compared to all of their heath friends (pride... pride... pride... pride). The friends, then, have to make a really difficult decision. Do I forward this idiocy to keep my soul clean, or do I reject God?

The thing is, the decision really isn't anywhere near that hard. The real decision is whether to reject a person's interpretation of God that was faulty from the moment this person decided that God wanted his message sent by viral email.

for all intents and purposes

Alright, time for Grammar Times with Uncle N.J. Today's lesson: "intensive purposes."

Intensive purposes are purposes which are totally freaking intense. At virtually no time should the words "for all" precede "intensive purposes."

On the other hand, "intents and purposes" are two words that mean basically the same thing and which imply, when used in conjunction with "for all," that the succeeding independent clause covers most categories.

Thus, "for all intents and purposes, the man was dead," means that the man was essentially dead or would soon be dead as a practical matter.

"For all intensive purposes, the man was dead," would mean the man was dead for some sort of undefined intense purpose. In other words, except under VERY specific conditions, this phrase doesn't make any sense.

So please remember, for all intents and purposes, you will almost always use the phrase "for all intents and purposes" before "for all intensive purposes."

more dumb quotes

In my continuing series of fwd type internet quotes (see here and here) I've come across the following:

Dance as though no one is watching you. Love as though you have never been hurt before. Sing as though no one can hear you. Live as though Heaven is on earth.

The problem is that I'm not sure if I can really make a lot of fun of this one, mostly because I appreciate the sentiment. Also, there are no real logic problems, as far as I can make out. It's very possible to sing like no one can hear you while dancing like no one can see you.

I guess the only real problem I see is the implied lack of confidence. Or perhaps the implied fear of being judged. Either way, I get a sense, while considering this little nothing quote that I should be embarrassed of singing and dancing. I should forget about my past hurts. And I should ignore all of the wrongs on this world.

Perhaps, in evaluating this quote, I should put it another way. It's too simplistic, and all of its simplicity comes from the wrong angle. Suppose we left the simplicity in, but approached it all from a slightly different path?

Dance as though the whole world were your audience. Learn and grow from your hurts, that you might love all the better for them. Sing loud, that everyone might hear. Live, for this is your one chance at life.

See? Still overly simplistic, but now you aren't hiding from the world, you're embracing it. I like it much better.

The Value of Tears

Hi folks. I'm just taking a break from the hell that is my Open Memo to bring you more ridiculous quotes from the internet.

NO man is worth your tears, but the one who is won't make you cry.

So let's begin here by pointing out the logic flaw.

If no man is worth your tears, then there cannot be one who is. It's impossible. If you were really going for some kind of reality here, you'd have to say, "only one man is worth your tears, and he won't make you cry."

Beyond that, though, there's a whole other issue here. Since when did people, particularly women, place a value on tear production? Furthermore, what kind of tears are we talking about? I don't know about anyone else, but I'm pretty sure my mom has cried with pride a time or two when I've done something particularly nifty. Does this mean I wasn't worth her tears, since I made her cry?

So let's try this again.

Only one man is worth your tears of sorrow, and he won't make you cry those tears of sorrow.

Alright. At least in a logical sense, I'm nearly cool with this. But then I remember that people die. So, supposing you marry, you have at least 2, and quite possibly several men who you might cry for in your lifetime, since grampa, daddy, and hubby are all likely to die before you, you lucky female-types you.

Yeah, I think we're going to have to just toss the whole thing. Instead, let's return to a quote that is perfectly reasonable and correct in every circumstances.

Nobody puts Baby in the corner.

Now that's a quote I can really get behind.

More internet quotes

Alrighty, so it's time for another edition of "stupid quotes from the internet." This marks the second edition of this feature, and I think we should all give a little salute in honor of it.

Um. Anyway, on to the ridiculousness.

Find a guy who calls you beautiful instead of hot...who calls you back when you hang up on him, will stay awake just to watch you sleep. Wait for the boy who kisses your forehead...who wants to show you off to the world when you are in sweats...who holds your hand in front of his friends...who thinks you're just as pretty without makeup...one who is constantly reminding you of how much he cares about you...the one who turns to his friends and says "that's her."

As far as I can tell, this is actually a really great description of of a man who honestly does love a girl.

Of course, that man is the girl's father.

....

Read it again. It makes WAY more sense than any other male.

....

Did you read it again? Good. Now, to be fair, this isn't nearly as bad as the last one. I mean, I suppose a boyfriend could probably fall under all these categories, but WAKE UP. These are all things that every single guy on earth knows. They are classic, nearly trademarked examples of things guys say to get their lady friends into bed.

Classic Guy: No honey, I really think you look beautiful, maybe even more now that you aren't wearing any make-up. You look so wonderful and natural.

Classic Girl (thinking): He loves me!

Classic Guy (thinking): SEX SEX SEX SEX SEX.


Get it? These are all obvious examples of "ways" to see if the guy you are interested in is "safe," and they are all stupid for being so obvious. Here's how you know a guy is safe.

He argues with you, because he feels comfortable around you. He gives you a high-five when you've really accomplished something. He listens to you complain about life, but either doesn't offer very much support, or tries to "fix it."

I know, these things lack any sort of romance, but what are you honestly looking for? Romance, a relationship, or sex?

Because that list has everything to do with the first and the last, and nothing to do with the second.

Edit (6/27 11:26PM): Lisa asked the following in the comments section....

Lisa: so does that mean that relationship and romance don't go together?

to which I replied....

Pretty much.

Just kidding...

You know, it's an interesting question. I think to make that assumption, you'd also have to say that sex and relationships don't go together, which is clearly wrong.

No. I would say that romance, sex, and relationships are three independent but interconnected things. This means that we can interact with any one, without necessarily meaning to interact with the other two. However, being the creatures we are, we tend to assume that, because they are all connected, interacting on one level includes interacting on one or both of the other levels.

Thus, in this example, men are using Romance to interact with Sex, while women are making the assumption that the Romance involved is meant to interact with Relationship.

One could arguably make the claim that not all men use Romance to lead to Sex and that not all women assume Romance is meant for a Relationship, but I think those cases are rare and/or limited to married or older couples.

Wait. Check that. I think men who aren't at least a little bit trying for sex using Romance are rare. I don't know where I stand on women assuming romance is a relationship builder. In fact, I think it's very likely that there are a great deal of women who are just as much horn-dogs as any men out there.

The only difference is that being "slutty" is considered immoral for women in modern America, so it is necessary to hide behind pretty ideas.

But who can say?

For the ladies (aka womyn) out there

Today allow me to parrot a quote I found on (where else?) MySpace.

Wait for the boy who pursues you, the one who will make an ordinary moment seem magical, the kind of boy who brings out the best in you and makes you want to be a better person. Wait for the boy who will be your best friend; the boy who makes you smile like no other and when he smiles you know he needs you. Most of all wait for the boy who will put you at the center of his universe, because obviously he's at the center of yours.

So there it is. I'm not sure which part I find the stupidest. I'm giving to prize to either "and when he smiles you know he needs you" or "the one who will make an ordinary moment seem magical."

The first one is pretty stupid, because it can be taken in a hundred billion negative ways (e.g. "when he smiles you know he needs you, because he obviously is a boxer, hockey player, or POOR toothbrusher" and "when he smiles you know he needs you, because he reminds you so much of Rain Man, and don't forget to wipe the drool away, hun!"). Seriously, "you know that he needs you"? It's so melodramatically meaningless that it makes me want to heave.

The second one brings to mind Alec Baldwin's amazing performance on Friends. Allow me to demonstrate.

Parker (alec baldwin): I don't want to forget this moment! It's like I want to take a mental picture of you! Click!
Chandler: I don't think the flash went off.

People who make every moment magical should be shot.

Parker: Is there something wrong?
Phoebe: Wrong? Really? You know the word, "wrong?" Everything isn't perfect? Everything isn't magical? Everything isn't "aglow with the light of a million fairies?" They were just brake lights, parker.
Parker: Well excuse me for putting a good spin on a traffic jam!

Ladies, today I'm going to present you with a special female edition of HTGBWET. Rule #1: If you met him at a bar, he's dressed preppy, wears a baseball cap backwards, likes abercrombie, and doesn't laugh EVER, he's a dill-hole. You don't love him; you love the picture of normalcy that society pushes on you. If you're looking for a great guy, look for one who laughs a lot, but isn't always smiling. Look for a guy who talks to you, before he makes assumptions about what you find romantic. And look for a guy who isn't acting chivalrous (society's fake), but who is definitely acting like he might love you.

Even then, there are no guarantees, but as a friend recently said, you're knight in shining armor could end up being "a loser in aluminum foil."