nother funny

[Tom A]

Quiz to Enter Heaven

Forrest Gump dies and goes to Heaven. He is met at the Pearly Gates by St. Peter himself. The gates are closed, however, and Forrest approaches the gatekeeper. St. Peter says "Well, Forrest, it's certainly good to see you. We have heard so many good things about you. I must inform you that the place is filling up fast, and we've been giving an entrance quiz for everyone.

The tests are short, but you need to pass before you can get into Heaven.

Forrest responds "It sure is good to be here, St. Peter. I was looking forward to this. Nobody ever told me about any entrance exam. Sure hope the test ain't too hard; Life was a big enough test as it was. St. Peter goes on, "I know, Forrest, but the test is only three questions:

! What days of the week begin with the letter T?

2 How many seconds are there in a year?

3 What is God's first name?"

Forrest goes away to think the questions over. He returns the next day and goes up to St. Peter to try to answer the exam questions. St. Peter waves him up and says "Now that you have had a chance to think the questions over, tell me your answers." Forrest says, "Well, the first one how many days of the week begin with the letter 'T?" "Shucks, that one's easy. That'd be Today and Tomorrow."

The Saint's eyes open wide and he exclaims "Forrest! That's not what I was thinking, but.....you do have a point though, and I guess I didn't specify, so I will give you credit for that answer."

"How about the next one?" "How many seconds in a year?""Now that one's harder" says Forrest, "but I thought and thought about that and I guess the only answer can be twelve." Astounded, St. Peter says "Twelve! Twelve! Forrest, how in Heaven's name could you come up with twelve seconds in a year?" Forest says "Aw, come on, St. Peter, there's gotta be twelve, January second, February second, March second. . . " "Hold it" interrupts St. Peter. "I see where you're going with it. I guess I see your point, though that wasn't quite what I had in mind, but I'll give you credit for that one too.

Let's go on with the next and final question. Can you tell me God's First name?" Forrest replied, "Andy." When St. Peter asked how in the world he came up with the name Andy? Forrest replied, "You know, St. Peter, that song we sing in church: "Andy walks with me, Andy talks with me."

The lesson:

THERE IS ALWAYS ANOTHER POINT OF VIEW, and just because Another person doesn't see things the same way or understand the same way that you do, does not mean that it's wrong.

[moosicman]

LOL....funny joke. I laughed. The rest of my post is quite heavy, but read it with as much lightheartedness as you can, for though it is weighty subject matter and incredibly valuable to consider, it wasn't written with any intent to slam or with criticism. Just a bit of a rant. At the same, time don't let that detract from what I think is a good dose of medicine for the liberalism of our time.

In response to the moral of the story at the bottom I will point out too, however, that it doesn't mean that another person's point of view is right, either! Everyone is entitled to having their opinion, but they are not entitled to that opinion being "right". I only say this because in the "pluralist" society in which we find ourselves we have become so full of tolerance and acceptance (i.e. liberalism-this having NOTHING to do with politics) that we have forgotten what TRUTH is (when I use the word truth, I mean also that because there is a truth, there is, by the nature of truth, a "right" and a "wrong" also). As an illustration, albiet a poor one: it is true (or a fact) that Tallahassee is the capitol of the state of Florida. Now, if that is my "opinion" and someone else holds the opinon that the capitol of Florida is Orlando, even though they are fully entitled to have that opinion, they are still wrong, hands down. Entitlement of opinion does not equal rightness or correctness.

Being intolerant (particularly of other's world-view or "lifestyle" or choices) these days has a bad rap, particularly because of some of the extremes that have been committed in the name of intolerance. But intolerance is not a BAD thing. For example, we are intolerant of people who drink and drive and there is a definite response to those caught doing so. We are also intolerant of drug dealers or child predators and many other behaviors that we classify as "wrong". The laws of this country are FULL of intolerance, and for good reasons.

The problem arises when we, at some point, are not willing to accept that some other entity (individual, government, doctrine or creed, society) should have a say as to what that standard of truth (therefore, right or wrong) is. For instance, we may say, who are YOU to tell me that using X drug is not right. And then you see things such as this "pluralism" and rationalization of our vices and evils taking shape. We take the notion that no matter what creed, belief, idea, or act, there is no truth BUT my opinion and you can have yours but it cannot invalidate or hender mine because I am entitled to my opinion, and so on and so on. This, however is a VERY slippery slope. For if that IS true and there is only opinion and no sense of right and wrong save whatever a person may feel is right and wrong, then what are we to say to the Dahmer's of the world? Is it only because his act is so egregious that we MUST say it is wrong. What are we to say to the pedophilias of the world? If truth is simply your VIEW, what basis do we have to say that they are wrong? They are definitly wrong, no doubt. Where have we, as humans, come about with this grey area where we have civil law to govern the lives of people over the obvious, socially unacceptable wrongs, and yet cast aside any moral laws of right and wrong because we dare not be intolerant of another's "opinion" or view or action, in fear of being labled an intolerant person or prudeish or whatever term that has been used (heaven help us if we get labled "conservative" and actually believe that there should be some moral standards these days-LOL). I will yield that it takes an INCREDIBLE amount of discernment to judge between some certain circumstances. But those are fewer and farther between that we would like to believe.

There must be a right and there must be a wrong. Viewpoint is irrelevant. If that were not so then right and wrong become relative. Right and wrong would be relative to what my opinion is. Logic and reason would then eventually disallow us from saying that there would be something wrong with any number of evils, such as spouse abuse, drug and alcohol addiction, stealing, adultery, or murder just to name a few.

More on this subject here: Three sides to every argument...

Wow....sorry for the rant. I guess I just felt like typing. LOL Didn't mean no harm. But again, I liked the joke!

[mitchy]

Reading the Scuba Toys forum is like a box of chocolates; you never know what you might find.