Michael Jackson just died. How do you feel?

[Moonlight Lady]

You two seem to believe that MJ was some really evil person. What makes you think so?

I always find it funny when the general public make judgments on celebrities based on what we see in the media. Maybe it's true, maybe it's not, but what do we know? I say leave it to God to decide the true heart of a man... any man, including MJ. My job on earth is not to be a man's judge and jury, but to share the joy of salvation with mankind. I only pray (like I do with anyone who dies) that MJ knew the love of Jesus, and that he was somehow saved.

Christianity is not an exclusive club, and we (as christians) are not some great board of executives that get to decide who does or doesn't have access to salvation. (Thank God) none of us hold the keys to the gates of heaven....for the way we continually judge each other, heaven would surely be empty.

​

 

[Nadiine]

Again, Nadiine, you are putting words in my mouth. I haven't, as of yet, actually defined what I mean by above reproach, yet here you are trying to tell me what I mean rather than asking for what I mean. Perhaps you should ask before you assume and take a step back from your posts to focus on the issue rather than the person.

Originally Posted by Godschild87

Is getting accused being above reproach?
​

Honestly, it doesn't matter what your definition is -

anyone can be wrongly accused of anything by anyone at
anytime.
He was tried 2 separate times with all the evidence they had
and it wasn't enough.
So people can have their suspicions, but that's all it is,
suspicion & speculation.

 

[Nadiine]

I always find it funny when the general public make judgments on celebrities based on what we see in the media. Maybe it's true, maybe it's not, but what do we know? I say leave it to God to decide the true heart of a man... any man, including MJ. My job on earth is not to be a man's judge and jury, but to share the joy of salvation with mankind. I only pray (like I do with anyone who dies) that MJ knew the love of Jesus, and that he was somehow saved.

Christianity is not an exclusive club, and we (as christians) are not some great board of executives that get to decide who does or doesn't have access to salvation. (Thank God) none of us hold the keys to the gates of heaven....for the way we continually judge each other, heaven would surely be empty.

Agreed!!

 

[Zebra1552]

Honestly, it doesn't matter what your definition is -

anyone can be wrongly accused of anything by anyone at
anytime.
He was tried 2 separate times with all the evidence they had
and it wasn't enough.
So people can have their suspicions, but that's all it is,
suspicion & speculation.

You're missing the point of what I said, totally and completely. I don't give a rip whether or not he did or didn't do anything to kids. That's not what I'm commenting on. I'm commenting on two facts that he should not be proud of to imply that he's human, just like anyone else, and should be treated as such rather than glamorized or idolized or discriminated. He's equal, and deserves the same treatment we give anyone else.

 

[Nadiine]

You're missing the point of what I said, totally and completely. I don't give a rip whether or not he did or didn't do anything to kids. That's not what I'm commenting on. I'm commenting on two facts that he should not be proud of to imply that he's human, just like anyone else, and should be treated as such rather than glamorized or idolized or discriminated. He's equal, and deserves the same treatment we give anyone else.

K
well, I tend to disagree with this. While all people hold the same
value as people, people do not have the same achievements or
meaning to others in what they've done.

I can assure you that my own mother wouldn't mean NEAR as
much to you as she does to me if she passed away. That's
becuz she holds more meaning to me becuz of my experience
w/ her and her life with me.

Much like our relation to our pets.

So in one way yes, in another way no. Nobody can tell someone
that one person can't mean more than another.

 

[Tissue]

So we should ignore outward appearance and risk getting accused and needlessly hindering God's work?

Your implication, then, is that MJ knew full well how his actions and demeanor would be perceived and, despite this, chose to act in such a way that society would think ill of him.

Now, generally, this is a pretty ridiculous idea; what kind of person in their right mind would act in such a way that they are scandalized, particularly for something as devious and widely hated as pedophilia?

Specifically, your view does not reflect the facts of MJ's psychological status. As state before, a trained, reputable psychologist found that MJ did not match the mental profile of a pedophile, but rather, was essentially a regressed 10-year-old.

Ironically, you are, in a way, reflecting that same fallacy you love to throw around so much: the appeal to popularity. Strange that you should place so much emphasis upon the popular opinion of Michael Jackson when you immediately throw up the fallacy-flag if the slightest whiff of a similar tone is found in someone else's post.

Also, it is very, VERY odd that you claim that one should be conscious of the way in which they will be perceived, while simultaneously arguing that it is not your fault if your posts are perceived in a way other than you intended them. Might it not be said that you are having your own scandal here, in this very topic?

EDIT: If this were a chess game, this post would constitute a fork of your queen and king.

 

[*Starlight*]

Um... letting kids stay overnight at your place isn't being above reproach, that's asking for trouble. I'm not blaming him for being accused, I'm blaming him for not having the common sense/wisdom to see how his actions might be perceived.

No, letting kids stay overnight at your place isn't asking for trouble, it's simply kindness towards these kids. The best thing to do is always to do what's right, even if many people are against it.

 

[Zebra1552]

Your implication, then, is that MJ knew full well how his actions and demeanor would be perceived and, despite this, chose to act in such a way that society would think ill of him.

No, I hold that he knew the difference between socially acceptable and NOT socially acceptable behavior and should have the wisdom to know what socially inappropriate behavior does when it comes to kids.

Now, generally, this is a pretty ridiculous idea; what kind of person in their right mind would act in such a way that they are scandalized, particularly for something as devious and widely hated as pedophilia?

Perhaps because you're again misrepresenting my ideas?

Specifically, your view does not reflect the facts of MJ's psychological status. As state before, a trained, reputable psychologist found that MJ did not match the mental profile of a pedophile, but rather, was essentially a regressed 10-year-old.

No. As CLAIMED earlier, he was a regressed 10-year-old. I've not seen any evidence for that.

Ironically, you are, in a way, reflecting that same fallacy you love to throw around so much: the appeal to popularity. Strange that you should place so much emphasis upon the popular opinion of Michael Jackson when you immediately throw up the fallacy-flag if the slightest whiff of a similar tone is found in someone else's post.

It isn't an appeal to popularity to point out what is or is not normal and what is perceived as weird in a certain culture.

Also, it is very, VERY odd that you claim that one should be conscious of the way in which they will be perceived, while simultaneously arguing that it is not your fault if your posts are perceived in a way other than you intended them. Might it not be said that you are having your own scandal here, in this very topic?

I argued that it isn't my fault if every time I communicate something someone somewhere has a problem with it. Get your facts straight:
I'm quite aware of what I write and I'm also quite aware that a number of people will have a tendency to read too much into what I write, no matter how I phrase it. So I'd much rather address it with those who do that when it happens than try to preclude every single post to make it idiot proof (so to speak).

EDIT: If this were a chess game, this post would constitute a fork of your queen and king.

No, it would equate using both rooks as a queen in the guise of a legal move.

 

[Zebra1552]

No, letting kids stay overnight at your place isn't asking for trouble, it's simply kindness towards these kids. The best thing to do is always to do what's right, even if many people are against it.

Maybe, but I don't live in an ideal world.

 

[Nadiine]

The only thing anyone can find inappropriate is having the kids
sleep in the same room with him - as an adult.

But however, again, taking his psychological issues into consideration,
I now see he was just being a kid with them. I doubt he much
viewed himself as an "adult" when he hung out with them , knowing
the childhood he missed and wished he had.

Most people without his 'disorder' wouldn't have done what he did.

 

[Lady Bug]

about MJ -

I know I'm in the middle of a discussion but about the question of how do I feel -

for the whole week that he was dead my heart has literally felt heavy - like there's a rock in my chest - I just feel so sad, like there were tears inside that never came out.



really...it sounds a bit maudlin but I did go over to a MJ board and talk about it because I felt like I could relate to those who are worse off than me about this.

 

[firstborn888]

Hey, I just posted that song in another thread.

That's how I feel too! And I'm crazy sick that he wasn't
recognized for this song like he should have been.
SICK.
Imo that's his best work yet & where was the media that
they didn't play it everywhere?

Thanks for the version with the better audio and without the annoying phrase on the screen!

Also overlooked by the media through the years is Michael's 300,000,000.00 in donations to charities. And that's just the public record. The media was more interested in profiting off his (sometimes) strange behavior.

- blessings

 

[firstborn888]

As far as folks complaining about giving Michael's death more attention than someone else's death: Bottom line is it's not just about Michael but it's about the people's hearts he touched worldwide. I never heard him brag either about the $300,000,000.00 in donations to charity (like some preachers brag). Give me a humble honest sinner over a pompous self righteous saint any day.

 

[Tissue]

No, I hold that he knew the difference between socially acceptable and NOT socially acceptable behavior and should have the wisdom to know what socially inappropriate behavior does when it comes to kids.

Then you are either ignorant of the facts (which is a pretty good sign you haven't been reading my posts), or just don't care about them.

Perhaps because you're again misrepresenting my ideas?

Please be more clear, then.

No. As CLAIMED earlier, he was a regressed 10-year-old. I've not seen any evidence for that.

Taraborrelli, J. Randy, Michael Jackson: The Magic and the Madness; Pan Macmillan, 2004

He called himself Peter Pan. He named his place Neverland Ranch. He certainly thought of himself as a young child, and according to Dr. Stan Katz, his mental profile matched it.

It isn't an appeal to popularity to point out what is or is not normal and what is perceived as weird in a certain culture.

Right; I agree. I'm just pointing out the irony. You've falsely accused so many people in the past of argumentum ad populum over things that merely looked like it, while here you are making an argument that looks like an appeal to popularity of sorts (at least, relative to the other arguments you accused).

I argued that it isn't my fault if every time I communicate something someone somewhere has a problem with it. Get your facts straight:

On the contrary, the argument we were having earlier was over your lack of clarity; that people were misreading you. Hence, your concern that your posts are not 'idiot-proof'. You were upset that 'idiots' were misreading your post. Perhaps you were focused on people who had a problem with your posts due to a misreading. I was concerned with something far more fundamental: that your posts apparently do not reflect what your actual opinion is, such that people who are faithful to your written text are promptly shut-down for not actually addressing your point.

No, it would equate using both rooks as a queen in the guise of a legal move.

Unclear.

 

[Zebra1552]

Then you are either ignorant of the facts (which is a pretty good sign you haven't been reading my posts), or just don't care about them.

Who was it that brought up being beyond reproach?

Please be more clear, then.

I was clear. We're talking about social norms and social appearance. It's in the context, quite clearly.

On the contrary, the argument we were having earlier was over your lack of clarity; that people were misreading you. Hence, your concern that your posts are not 'idiot-proof'. You were upset that 'idiots' were misreading your post. Perhaps you were focused on people who had a problem with your posts due to a misreading. I was concerned with something far more fundamental: that your posts apparently do not reflect what your actual opinion is, such that people who are faithful to your written text are promptly shut-down for not actually addressing your point.

This is an emotional issue that needs to be toned down, generally that is done with logic. My posts merely contain what was asked for by the OP, if people are hypothetically too short sighted to read my posts in context then they certainly can be deemed 'idiots'.

Unclear.

Then let me translate: if you want me to be fair to MJ, then you can be fair to me.

 

[Nadiine]

about MJ -

I know I'm in the middle of a discussion but about the question of how do I feel -

for the whole week that he was dead my heart has literally felt heavy - like there's a rock in my chest - I just feel so sad, like there were tears inside that never came out.



really...it sounds a bit maudlin but I did go over to a MJ board and talk about it because I felt like I could relate to those who are worse off than me about this.

That's what happened to me too Lady Bug, I can totally relate
to how you've been feeling. It's so hard to explain why I would
feel so sad and grieve so much over somebody I didn't even know.

But I think alot of it is that his life was so tragic and even tho he
was mega popular, he was hounded by horrible stories about him
constantly and was so misunderstood.
Since I'm a part of the ones who didn't understand him (I thought
he was wierd but I loved his music), I feel alot of guilt...
but I came to the conclusion that I couldn't of helped him anyways.
I didn't contribute to his pain or help either way.

What I wished I would have done was PRAY for him tho. That's
what I could of done and I feel bad that I didn't.

The one good thing right now is that his family is now seeing such
a huge outpouring of love and compassion for MJ & them from
millions & millions of people. I hope they take comfort in that --
and I pray they seek the Lord as well.

* (Patrick Swayze & his family need our prayers too)

 

[Tissue]

Who was it that brought up being beyond reproach?

No idea what you're talking about.

I was clear. We're talking about social norms and social appearance. It's in the context, quite clearly.

A person is not a good judge of how clearly they are able to communicate. You are unclear. I am doing my best to be as faithful as possible to what your actual view is. If I am getting it wrong, then perhaps the fault is with me. Or, perhaps, the fault is with you.

In most discussions with most people, I have found myself to be able to perceive what a person's point is. Yet, historically, with you, this does not appear to be the case. Since you are speaking English, I can only assume that the fault is with you. As I have observed others who have the same difficulties that I do in conversations with you (some of whom I respect very greatly as intelligent and perceptive people), my conclusion seems quite sound.

Of course, you might disagree.

This is an emotional issue that needs to be toned down, generally that is done with logic. My posts merely contain what was asked for by the OP, if people are hypothetically too short sighted to read my posts in context then they certainly can be deemed 'idiots'.

There is something that many learn as they grow older (I am learning it myself), that one will produce a greater contribution to a conversation if they have a little charity with the people they are discussing with. That you are entirely unwilling to accept a bit of the fault for your unclear communication shows you are also unwilling to be charitable. I recommend you rethink this strategy.

Yes, your post answered the OP; that is irrelevant. To repeat myself, my concern is with the apparent disconnect between what you mean to say and what you actually say. I am not arguing, nor have I argued in this topic, that your point is irrelevant from the conversation as a whole.

Then let me translate: if you want me to be fair to MJ, then you can be fair to me.

I would love to be fair to you, Godschild, but if fairness includes being faithful to one's written text, then it is incredibly difficult to do your posts justice.

 

[Nadiine]

As far as folks complaining about giving Michael's death more attention than someone else's death: Bottom line is it's not just about Michael but it's about the people's hearts he touched worldwide. I never heard him brag either about the $300,000,000.00 in donations to charity (like some preachers brag). Give me a humble honest sinner over a pompous self righteous saint any day.

True humanitarian.

That Earth Song totally changed things with me when I saw it
for the first time yesterday afternoon - it makes me
furious at media and tabloids who live to rip these celebs to
shreds and kick them when they're down.

Outside of the users who leached off him and betrayed him for gain,
the media is also responsible for alot of his pain.

 

[Zebra1552]

No idea what you're talking about.

A person is not a good judge of how clearly they are able to communicate. You are unclear. I am doing my best to be as faithful as possible to what your actual view is. If I am getting it wrong, then perhaps the fault is with me. Or, perhaps, the fault is with you.

Is the fault with how I communicate or the differences in how we think?

In most discussions with most people, I have found myself to be able to perceive what a person's point is. Yet, historically, with you, this does not appear to be the case. Since you are speaking English, I can only assume that the fault is with you. As I have observed others who have the same difficulties that I do in conversations with you (some of whom I respect very greatly as intelligent and perceptive people), my conclusion seems quite sound.

Perhaps because you approach everything with a completely rational mind rather than thinking outside the box?

Of course, you might disagree.

I don't think it has anything to do with communication, so why would I admit fault with communication?

There is something that many learn as they grow older (I am learning it myself), that one will produce a greater contribution to a conversation if they have a little charity with the people they are discussing with. That you are entirely unwilling to accept a bit of the fault for your unclear communication shows you are also unwilling to be charitable. I recommend you rethink this strategy.

Recommend all you like, you're not going to get anywhere.

Yes, your post answered the OP; that is irrelevant. To repeat myself, my concern is with the apparent disconnect between what you mean to say and what you actually say. I am not arguing, nor have I argued in this topic, that your point is irrelevant from the conversation as a whole.

There is no disconnect except in how differently you and I think.

I would love to be fair to you, Godschild, but if fairness includes being faithful to one's written text, then it is incredibly difficult to do your posts justice.

Then stop thinking philosophically.

 

[Celticflower]

Praying that all the attention given to MJ's life and death and everything that has followed, will soon pass into the mists of time so we can get back to real life.

(Felt the same way when Elvis died - just let them rest in peace and move on)