Ship of Fools: Indifferently the uberAnglican

Thread: Indifferently the uberAnglican Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025670

Posted by St Deird (# 7631) on :

Indifferently, what the hell is your problem? You seem to consider it essential to interrupt every thread you disagree with just to point out that you disagree with it - and you're so completely obsessed with being Anglican that it outweighs your interest in being Christian.

I mean, when your reason for not using prayer beads is them not being in the prayer book, that's weird. And then, when it comes to the difference between you and Fred Phelps of all fucking people, the first reason that springs to mind is "but Phelps doesn't agree with the thirty-nine articles!" WHAT THE HELL IS THAT???

You are INSANE, and need to actually learn that following Jesus has a lot more to it than following the CoE's publications - especially since Jesus couldn't have listed a single one of the fucking thirty-nine.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

The wanker started discussion the titles of Anglican bishops in the latest Presby thread down in Eccles.

Dear Lord, I get my quarterly Eccles Communion and Indifferently starts filling the common cup with backwash.

[Disappointed]

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

Here's his go at antisemitism.

And whatever this is.

What a peach.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

And pronouncing "God is Love" after starting a thread bemoaning the de-emphasis on God's Wrath.

Not to mention his intention to "unchurch" the Phelps crowd after assuring us that he doesn't usually "unchurch" people.

and his very special approach to Dead Horses. He's almost as good as Fred Phelps in convincing bigots to change their mind because they don't want to be on the same side of the argument as him

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

It's my impression that he is a youth taking the piss.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
It's my impression that he is a youth taking the piss.

His profile says he was born in 1960. Though 1690 would be equally feasible.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Here's his go at antisemitism.

And whatever this is.

What a peach.

I think they were posted at about midnight and 2:30 am. Posting while pissed is about as smart as DUI. His latest dig at orfeo on the Russian anti-gay bill thread however was posted mid-afternoon. Maybe too good a lunch?

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

I draw your attention to the following theory. It seems to me to explain quite a lot about this particular Shipmate.

"Indifferently" is found in the Book of Common Prayer 1662 version. From Holy Communion

quote:
And grant unto her [i.e. the Queen’s] whole Council, and to all that are put in authority under her, that they may truly and indifferently administer justice, to the punishment of wickedness and vice, and to the maintenance of true religion, and virtue.

In context and at the time of original composition, the word meant "impartially". I think our Shipmate is playing on the double meaning that "indifferently" holds today i.e. he is the impartial one AND he is completely indifferent to the opinions of anyone who disagrees with him.

Which of course tends to make attempts at discussion based on viewpoints other than his own just a tad fruitless. Still, his particular brand of reformation seems to keep him happy enough.

Personally, I think he's a bit of a saddo. Kind of "boxed in", really.

Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
It's my impression that he is a youth taking the piss.

I also got the impression he wasn't serious - I figured he was trolling. Someone who is as fanatical about the Church of England as his posts seem to suggest would surely not give themselves a name like 'indifferently'.

ETA: Ah, I cross-posted with Barnabas62. Maybe then he is serious. He still seems like he is trolling in the way he goes about it though. Maybe he just lacks social interaction skills.

[ 23. June 2013, 22:17: Message edited by: Fineline ]

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :

I'll bet in real life he's the life of the party, someone everyone wants to be like.

[Roll Eyes]

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

That might depend on who else has been invited.

Posted by Lothiriel (# 15561) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I draw your attention to the following theory. It seems to me to explain quite a lot about this particular Shipmate.

"Indifferently" is found in the Book of Common Prayer 1662 version. From Holy Communion

quote:
And grant unto her [i.e. the Queen’s] whole Council, and to all that are put in authority under her, that they may truly and indifferently administer justice, to the punishment of wickedness and vice, and to the maintenance of true religion, and virtue.
In context and at the time of original composition, the word meant "impartially". I think our Shipmate is playing on the double meaning that "indifferently" holds today i.e. he is the impartial one AND he is completely indifferent to the opinions of anyone who disagrees with him.

Which of course tends to make attempts at discussion based on viewpoints other than his own just a tad fruitless. Still, his particular brand of reformation seems to keep him happy enough.

Personally, I think he's a bit of a saddo. Kind of "boxed in", really.

When I first saw his/her screen name, I thought of a bit in CS Lewis's Prayer: Letters to Malcolm. Lewis is decrying changes to the prayer book, specifically about changing "indifferently" to "impartially". He tells of asking one (1) older man of little education what he thinks "indifferently" means. To Lewis's delight, the old man trots out the old prayer book definition (equivalent to the modern "impartially") and says he doesn't know what the actual word "impartially" means - so Lewis says "see -- we shouldn't mess with the old prayer book, because 'ordinary' people understand it."

Not one of Lewis's finer moments -- he could be quite a doorknob about anything to do with change in the church. Almost as doorknobbish as our friend Indifferently.

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
It's my impression that he is a youth taking the piss.

My guess is more along the lines of a cranky old bastard pissed off about things not being as good as they were in the rose-tinted 1950s.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
It's my impression that he is a youth taking the piss.

Means he's a drunk or is peeing around here, though the way you wrote it is strange. We normally say taking a piss for peeing, and being pissed for drunk. What do you mean by it? Posting when drunk?

Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:

quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
It's my impression that he is a youth taking the piss.
Means he's a drunk or is peeing around here, though the way you wrote it is strange. We normally say taking a piss for peeing, and being pissed for drunk. What do you mean by it? Posting when drunk?

Oh, FFS, let's turn this thread into another discussion of different forms of English. NOT.

Google it, you fucktard.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:

quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
It's my impression that he is a youth taking the piss.
My guess is more along the lines of a cranky old bastard pissed off about things not being as good as they were in the rose-tinted 1950s.

1950's?

More like 15 or 1600's.

The question is whether the way the truth and the life begins in 1549, 1552, or 1662.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
It's my impression that he is a youth taking the piss.

Young?
You can almost hear him shouting "Kids! Get off of my lawn (surplice)!"

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

I wondered about the troll theory, mostly because when I first read his stuff it didn't really gel all that well with the 1662 BCP Anglicans I know. But I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.

Despite the McEnroe "You can not be serious" thoughts. Trolls are sad too. Just a different kind of sad.

Posted by David (# 3) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I wondered about the troll theory, mostly because when I first read his stuff it didn't really gel all that well with the 1662 BCP Anglicans I know. But I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.

Interesting thought. Different type of lunatic?

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Here's his go at antisemitism.

And whatever this is.

What a peach.
I think they were posted at about midnight and 2:30 am. Posting while pissed is about as smart as DUI. His latest dig at orfeo on the Russian anti-gay bill thread however was posted mid-afternoon. Maybe too good a lunch?

Ta. Hadn't seen that yet. Unimaginative and fairly predictable, but then indifferently hasn't shown the slightest flicker of creativity anywhere.

The bit about being different from Phelps because Phelps doesn't believe the 39 Articles was amazingly obtuse, wasn't it.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

He was rather spot on about modesty tho.

Can I brag too? Even tho I'm not gay? Or is it only gay people that are awesome? [Razz]

[ 24. June 2013, 06:58: Message edited by: Evensong ]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by David:

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I wondered about the troll theory, mostly because when I first read his stuff it didn't really gel all that well with the 1662 BCP Anglicans I know. But I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.
Interesting thought. Different type of lunatic?

Practising my PC language mode, David; even in Hell. (Which makes me kind of sad too. But you never know when it might come in useful these days)

Good to see you back, Shipmate.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

To be honest, I'm quite surprised this thread took so long to appear.

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

Whatever his age (and I take the info on people's profiles with a large grain of salt*), I think Indifferently is a wind-up merchant**. His persona*** is that of a complete asshat****, and I'd contend that someone who goes to such trouble to portray themselves as a tedious bigot may well be one IRL*****.

*'with a...grain of salt': with some skepticism
**'wind-up merchant': someone taking the piss
***'persona': the role taken by an actor
****'asshat': one whose head is stuck so far up their own fundament that he or she is wearing their buttocks as a hat. Favourite epithet of Erin, may she rest in peace.
*****'IRL': In real life.

[ 24. June 2013, 09:12: Message edited by: Amos ]

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

My main meeting with Indif was on the Phelps thread. Interestingly, his reasons for not being like Phelps were that he believes in the 39 articles, and infant baptism. Neither of which Jesus would have accepted.

He is clearly an Anglianist, not a Christian. He is also so utterly outraged at everything that suggests his beloved CofE is fucked down the fucking drain that I suspect he will die along with it.

Good fucking riddance.

RIP. Dipship.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:

quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
It's my impression that he is a youth taking the piss.
Means he's a drunk or is peeing around here, though the way you wrote it is strange. We normally say taking a piss for peeing, and being pissed for drunk. What do you mean by it? Posting when drunk?

In the UK, 'taking the piss' is a perfectly normal expression for 'taking the mickey', 'winding someone up' etc. Sometimes people play around with the phrase: 'extracting the urine'. If one is 'taking the piss out of someone else' that means you're making fun out of them. Absolutely regular normal UK phrase.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I've heard of rabid Anglicans, but thought it must be a misprint, but lo, no, it is so.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
He is also so utterly outraged at everything that suggests his beloved CofE is fucked down the fucking drain that I suspect he will die along with it.

We are not fucked down the fucking drain.

And I tell you, you are Anglican and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.

Besides, we're a catchpool for disillusioned conservative fundies that aren't quite ready to give up their faith. Plenty of scope there.

Thanks be to God.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
To be honest, I'm quite surprised this thread took so long to appear.

Though, there are two existing Hell calls for other things that Indifferently has posted. Not many people manage 3 active Hell calls at the same time.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
He was rather spot on about modesty tho.

Can I brag too? Even tho I'm not gay? Or is it only gay people that are awesome?

There are plenty of awesome straight people in this world. But you haven't provided much evidence that you're one of them.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
There are plenty of awesome straight people in this world. But you haven't provided much evidence that you're one of them.

"much"?

Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :

Probably don't need the qualifier for Evensong, but we'll try to keep this on Indifferently, shall we? For now, anyway.

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

This may be an IM from the '70s, but I believe the canonical form is, "Straights can be awesome, but only gay people can be Fabulous."

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PeteC:
Probably don't need the qualifier for Evensong, but we'll try to keep this on Indifferently, shall we? For now, anyway.

Point ta'en

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

[tangent]
An ad just popped up next to this thread -- "4 Ways to Awesomeness."
[Big Grin]

[/tangent]

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
[tangent]
An ad just popped up next to this thread -- "4 Ways to Awesomeness."

[/tangent]

Is "turn off advertising in your browser" one of them?

Posted by Deputy Verger (# 15876) on :

Haha!

I just got an ad for "sewage treatment experts"!

[Killing me]

Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on :

Some Shippies are prone to the belief that Anglicans get off lightly round these parts. Personally, I feel utterly besmirched by the association.

[Paranoid]

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PeteC:

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:

quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
It's my impression that he is a youth taking the piss.
Means he's a drunk or is peeing around here, though the way you wrote it is strange. We normally say taking a piss for peeing, and being pissed for drunk. What do you mean by it? Posting when drunk?
Oh, FFS, let's turn this thread into another discussion of different forms of English. NOT.

Google it, you fucktard.

No one should have to google to understand something written in English.

And given my well-known sensitivity to this word which I have raised enough times to drive people to go get pissed and then piss themselves, I'll refrain from calling you a crippletard.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
No one should have to google to understand something written in English.

What? You mean every English speaker in the world should have memorized the whole of the vocabulary of both words and phrases? Are you mad?

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
No one should have to google to understand something written in English.
What? You mean every English speaker in the world should have memorized the whole of the vocabulary of both words and phrases? Are you mad?

Obvious slang that doesn't play everywhere. We're in hell where we can apparently chew gnarf.

[ 24. June 2013, 20:07: Message edited by: no prophet ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Obvious slang that doesn't play everywhere.

1. You have now moved the goalposts.

2. I have no idea how much of my slang plays everywhere. How much easier for you just to google a fucking phrase than for each of us to determine, for every slang term we use, where and where not it's used.

[ 24. June 2013, 20:18: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:

quote:
Originally posted by PeteC:

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:

quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
It's my impression that he is a youth taking the piss.
Means he's a drunk or is peeing around here, though the way you wrote it is strange. We normally say taking a piss for peeing, and being pissed for drunk. What do you mean by it? Posting when drunk?
Oh, FFS, let's turn this thread into another discussion of different forms of English. NOT.

Google it, you fucktard.
No one should have to google to understand something written in English.

I learned just how wrong that is very early in my hosting career. On the other hand you get to choose whether to follow a thread, so if there's something that escapes your encyclopaedic knowledge, you can look it up. Haven't you ever had to use a dictionary?

quote:

And given my well-known sensitivity to this word which I have raised enough times to drive people to go get pissed and then piss themselves, I'll refrain from calling you a crippletard.

If you're sensitive to a word and let people know you feel that way about it then, in Hell especially, guess what word they will use? Go on, I'm sure even you can work this out.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:

And given my well-known sensitivity to this word which I have raised enough times to drive people to go get pissed and then piss themselves, I'll refrain from calling you a crippletard.

My theory is that 'fucktard' is not a contraction of anything. It belongs to the family of bastard/laggard/coward/dastard/blackguard. Strictly, it should be 'fuckard' - but a really effective expletive needs a consonantal spine - hence the 't'.

But no prophet in this matter is a diehard, not to mention dullard.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Also connects with 'retard', as in 'creotard', or is it 'creatard'?

So, 'tard' is a bit like 'gate', although so far, less productive.

Hence, "'creotardgate' scandal rocks Governor's mansion."

[ 24. June 2013, 21:09: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

First 3 hits with "fucktard" in the displayed link within the non-tracking non-google-search engine ixquick.com do not support the argument advanced above:

http://www.chattingwords.com/definition/what-is-fucktard.htm

http://onlineslangdictionary.com/meaning-definition-of/fucktard

http://www.chattingwords.com/definition/what-is-fucktard.htm

You might also find this article informative, even though some of you apparently already know it all: Man with Down's syndrome responsed to 'retard', Macleans magazine

Having spent some time recently at the Special Olympics in Saskatoon, yes I am a dullard about this.

You can dress it up as you want, but fucktard means fucking retard and insults some people as badly as nigger would others. Where I live, either would get you punched of you said it outloud, and a human rights complaint when possible.

Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :

You've posted that stuff often enough to be a crusader.

Fucktard.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

I get the Hell thing and the ha-ha. But I had thought better of you Pete.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

Really, you've never given that impression before.

Or is this more of a passive aggressive attempt to change his mind ?

Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :

It wouldn't work,anyway. I may be crippled, but he's still a fucktard.

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :

Uh oh. Is no prophet pissed?

Parse that, fuckstard.

By, the way... who is Indifferently?

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Trying to be the language police in Hell is a Sisyphean task. And I don't give a fuck whether you have to google Sisyphean.

Posted by passer (# 13329) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Trying to be the language police in Hell is a Sisyphean task. And I don't give a fuck whether you have to google Sisyphean.

"whether you have to google Sisyphean"..... or what?

Unless you meant "if you have to google Sisyphean", of course.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

By the FSM I hope that was intentionally ironic...

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RooK:

By, the way... who is Indifferently?

There is a world outside hell ya know.

You should try it some time.

Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :

His possibly-feigned indifference to Indifferently notwithstanding, I would trust that RooK''s position as Admin gives him a better view of the Ship's world outside He'll than is available to you, Evensong.

Posted by comet (# 10353) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
Ship's world outside He'll

Turn off autocorrect, you loser.

Posted by Plique-à-jour (# 17717) on :

I sympathise with anyone who gets bullied. Even those who might be bullies themselves if they got the chance.

The Church of England seems to be run by people who hold anyone who can bothered to turn up in contempt. They want the mainstream audience, and the mainstream audience don't give a fuck. Going there, knowing your church history - if I remember rightly, Indifferently is, like me, a convert - only to find that the church themselves no longer know or care... I can see how that would make you angry.

[ 25. June 2013, 18:48: Message edited by: Plique-à-jour ]

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:

The Church of England seems to be run by people who hold anyone who can bothered to turn up in contempt. They want the mainstream audience, and the mainstream audience don't give a fuck. Going there, knowing your church history - if I remember rightly, Indifferently is, like me, a convert - only to find that the church themselves no longer know or care... I can see how that would make you angry.

Ah, the whiff of a condemnatory generalization so universal as to be utterly worthless! Restores your faith in laziness and unthinking cynicism.

Posted by Plique-à-jour (# 17717) on :

Well, how many churches should a person attend, and see this, before they've got a representative sample? To paraphrase Dodsworth, self-abnegation has to end somewhere short of self-harm.

Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
You can dress it up as you want, but fucktard means fucking retard and insults some people as badly as nigger would others.

This is true. Just looking at the context in which this word became popular makes it obvious that this is how it originated and what it means. Of course, not everyone knows/accepts this, and many may not intend this meaning when they use it - just like there are some people who use 'gay' as an insult, meaning 'stupid', and insist it has nothing to do with any other meaning of 'gay'. And people who use 'mong' as in insult, insisting it has nothing to do with people who have Down Syndrome. Whether or not this is considered acceptable here, I have no idea - I understand this is Hell, so insults are to be expected - but no prophet is completely correct in what s/he says, and since no one else was saying so, I am saying it.

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Dipship.

Eh?

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
Well, how many churches should a person attend, and see this, before they've got a representative sample?

I have no idea. The notion that my fellowship with other Christians should be regarded as a series of 'representative samples' upon which I base an ultimate conclusion of either total approval or total condemnation is completely new to me. However, I can understand the temptation to take one's disillusionment with an imperfect thing, and make it the basis for viewing one's whole relationship with it.

I would be inclined to think that if my experience of the CofE were so uniformly dismal
that perhaps I'm not really meant to be a member of the CofE. I would also be inclined not to think that that was entirely the fault of everybody and everything in the CofE, if this were so.

Personally, I've always found it to be a mixed bag with the good outweighing the bad.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

What if I don't orfeo?

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
What if I don't orfeo?

And what if you do?

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Well we know the answer to THAT Johnny English.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by passer:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Trying to be the language police in Hell is a Sisyphean task. And I don't give a fuck whether you have to google Sisyphean.
"whether you have to google Sisyphean"..... or what?

Unless you meant "if you have to google Sisyphean", of course.

Whether... Or not.

I'd quite like to shoot you, right about now. Just so you know.

Posted by Plique-à-jour (# 17717) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:

quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
Well, how many churches should a person attend, and see this, before they've got a representative sample?
I have no idea. The notion that my fellowship with other Christians should be regarded as a series of 'representative samples' upon which I base an ultimate conclusion of either total approval or total condemnation is completely new to me. However, I can understand the temptation to take one's disillusionment with an imperfect thing, and make it the basis for viewing one's whole relationship with it.

I would be inclined to think that if my experience of the CofE were so uniformly dismal
that perhaps I'm not really meant to be a member of the CofE. I would also be inclined not to think that that was entirely the fault of everybody and everything in the CofE, if this were so.

Personally, I've always found it to be a mixed bag with the good outweighing the bad.

I don't proceed in terms of representative samples myself. You said I was making a generalisation. My question was: how much data would it need to be based on to become a well-founded observation? I am not new to the CofE. My experience has not been uniformally dismal. At one point I was giving it hundreds of hours a year of my time and effort in every imaginable voluntary capacity. But where I live now, not only isn't there a decent preacher in the diocese, there doesn't seem to be one who's even trying. The only impassioned thing I've heard in a pulpit here was a volley of unChristian spite that kept me away from any CofE establishment for a year. Worship is uniformly middle-of-the-road and low-energy. The musical standard is a disgrace. Willingness to turn up seems to be nine-tenths of what got these people ordained, and with one exception, they turn up five minutes before kick-off and only talk to their mates afterwards. I could tell you dozens of stories, but I don't want to make the place identifiable.

The people who make all this possible, the churchwardens, the readers, the volunteers, are all as good as they always are, in my experience, in the CofE. These people care, and they are welcoming and engaged, doing most of the work. The point is, the general standard remains poor because nobody who cares has the authority to improve it, and nobody who has the authority to improve it cares. Laziness and unthinking cynicism is precisely what I observe in these places. People who come to church will come whether you do a good job or not, so why worry? It's the logic of an abusive relationship - if you're with me, the loser of the world, you must be scum, so I'll treat you however I like. That's the Church of England now.

Meanwhile, the people who don't come to church are Goldenbollocks. They're the people we need to tailor our services to, the ones whose approval we crave. I come from an atheist background, I know how atheists frame religion when they aren't being tolerant for the benefit of the religious - the mandate of mainstream status the Church of England once enjoyed will never come again.

The question for me became: is it worth coming here to see the piss being taken every week? For me, the answer was no, not really. It's not everybody and everything, just the people who run it.

I don't regard myself as no longer an Anglican, I just regard myself as an Anglican who can't get decent worship. I know it can be good, but it can also worse than anything anyone with influence cared about would ever be likely to.

[ 25. June 2013, 21:44: Message edited by: Plique-à-jour ]

Posted by Plique-à-jour (# 17717) on :

That's GET worse. Get worse than anything anyone with influence cared about would ever be likely to.

So, I can understand a certain amount of anger.

[ 25. June 2013, 21:50: Message edited by: Plique-à-jour ]

Posted by St Deird (# 7631) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fineline:

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
You can dress it up as you want, but fucktard means fucking retard and insults some people as badly as nigger would others.
This is true. Just looking at the context in which this word became popular makes it obvious that this is how it originated and what it means. Of course, not everyone knows/accepts this, and many may not intend this meaning when they use it - just like there are some people who use 'gay' as an insult, meaning 'stupid', and insist it has nothing to do with any other meaning of 'gay'. And people who use 'mong' as in insult, insisting it has nothing to do with people who have Down Syndrome. Whether or not this is considered acceptable here, I have no idea - I understand this is Hell, so insults are to be expected - but no prophet is completely correct in what s/he says, and since no one else was saying so, I am saying it.

Etymology is not meaning. A word can have originated as one thing, and now be used to mean something else. (Unless you think that people who say "that movie is so gay" are complaining about how happy and lively it was...)

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
I don't regard myself as no longer an Anglican, I just regard myself as an Anglican who can't get decent worship. I know it can be good, but it can also worse than anything anyone with influence cared about would ever be likely to.

I guess you're just in for a world of pain, then.

As Wordsworth said, I'd rather be a Pagan suckled on a creed outworn, than put up with 'church' as you describe it.

Posted by Plique-à-jour (# 17717) on :

Oh, but I stopped putting up with it! I just stay away. I've been going to services of another denomination occasionally, and loving them, and I go to weekday sermonless no-frills eucharists occasionally, where there's nothing to foul up, or perhaps, let's say, where their minimal effort goes well with the desired simplicity. I regard myself as an Anglican who can't get decent worship, but I don't feel I'm missing out when I stay home on Sunday, because there's nothing worth attending I could physically get to at present.

[ 26. June 2013, 17:45: Message edited by: Plique-à-jour ]

Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on :

quote:
Originally posted by St Deird:
Etymology is not meaning. A word can have originated as one thing, and now be used to mean something else. (Unless you think that people who say "that movie is so gay" are complaining about how happy and lively it was...)

Of course words change meaning over time. But fucktard is pretty recent as a term, and really hasn't had chance to change. People are generally aware that it's developed as an amalgamation of 'fucking retard', because its development has been in the past few years.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
. I regard myself as an Anglican who can't get decent worship,

I didn't think worship was something we got, rather something we offered.

Posted by Plique-à-jour (# 17717) on :

I offer worship every day. You read my entire post and you thought it was important you put me in my place with a funny? I am not a bad Christian for not offering myself up to witness shoddy work done by bored and intellectually dishonest people.

Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on :

So why are you a bad Christian?

Posted by Plique-à-jour (# 17717) on :

I refuse to equate humility with making excuses for the misuse of earthly authority. We know where that leads.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
I am not a bad Christian for not offering myself up to witness shoddy work done by bored and intellectually dishonest people.

AFAIK immodesty isn't a sin but its awfully tiresome.

Posted by Plique-à-jour (# 17717) on :

Where is the immodesty in anything I've said here?

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
Where is the immodesty in anything I've said here?

Here

"I offer worship every day. You read my entire post and you thought it was important you put me in my place with a funny? I am not a bad Christian for not offering myself up to witness shoddy work done by bored and intellectually dishonest people."

and

"I refuse to equate humility with making excuses for the misuse of earthly authority. We know where that leads."

If you can't recognise immodesty in those posts then it is all but assured.

Posted by Plique-à-jour (# 17717) on :

Oh wow, you're really equating self-abasement to human authority with humility? Amazing.

So however bad a job someone does, it's out of line for anyone to follow their conscience in reacting to that. Forever and ever.

I can't agree.

[ 26. June 2013, 23:20: Message edited by: Plique-à-jour ]

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

I think what Sioni Sais is saying is, "So you think you are all that?"

Posted by Plique-à-jour (# 17717) on :

That only makes any sense if you assume my complaints can't be valid because they're priests.

Posted by Plique-à-jour (# 17717) on :

I mean, there is a difference between well and badly done ritual, music, preaching, etc., you know? I have enough experience on both sides of the chancel step to be confident in my judgement of the difference. Refusing to accept a fucking chiding for expressing this judgement is not immodesty.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
I mean, there is a difference between well and badly done ritual, music, preaching, etc., you know? I have enough experience on both sides of the chancel step to be confident in my judgement of the difference. Refusing to accept a fucking chiding for expressing this judgement is not immodesty.

I suppose my beef in all of this is: just how much does that hour or two on a Sunday morning (plus perhaps another meeting at some other time during the week) really matter to you? Is that the extent of your faith? If so, you have a serious problem because it is outside your control.

The remaining 165 (or so) of 168 hours a week your "Christian Experience" is hardly affected, except by worrying about what goes on in the shack.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

-

-

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Some of you are being damn nitpicky with plique-a-jour. and I don't often go around taking issue with Hell attacks.

And you know what?i can totally understand that stuff mattering. I don't have a church or service I can call 'home' right now, and it sucks. And I couldn't just settle for any old service as if the nature of the experience I have on a Sunday didn't matter to me.

[ 27. June 2013, 02:38: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

I'm 50 miles and a 27 hour round trip from the nearest Anglican church. I'd be overjoyed to be able to share in Holy Communion regularly, even carried out in the slightly ham-fisted way it can be in the CofE. Excellent preaching and thoughtful liturgy and beautiful music are beneficial and pleasant, but they pale in comparison to the fact of the Eucharistic celebration.

Posted by Indifferently (# 17517) on :

How dare I uphold the teaching and doctrine of the Ancient Catholic Church according to the Reformed and Protestant Church of England. The BCP and Articles are not inspired of themselves but derive their infallible authority from the Scriptures and the Fathers interpreting the same.

Being bullied is par for the course if you are an orthodox Christian believer in the C of E today.

But let's not be too scruputous. Our faith is all about bringing people to salvation through Jesus: "If any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous, and he is the propitiation for our sins."

But this is a very mean spirited thread.

Posted by St Deird (# 7631) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
How dare I uphold the teaching and doctrine of the Ancient Catholic Church according to the Reformed and Protestant Church of England. The BCP and Articles are not inspired of themselves but derive their infallible authority from the Scriptures and the Fathers interpreting the same.

Seriously?

The BCP and Articles are infallible? Seriously?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Maybe it's a mirror.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
How dare I uphold the teaching and doctrine of the Ancient Catholic Church according to the Reformed and Protestant Church of England. The BCP and Articles are not inspired of themselves but derive their infallible authority from the Scriptures and the Fathers interpreting the same.

Being bullied is par for the course if you are an orthodox Christian believer in the C of E today.

But let's not be too scruputous. Our faith is all about bringing people to salvation through Jesus: "If any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous, and he is the propitiation for our sins."

But this is a very mean spirited thread.

I've stood up for orthodox belief and Anglicanism on these boards many times, Indifferently, and I think you are a hateful, narrow-minded idiot and a bigot.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Mean spirited even.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I'm 50 miles and a 27 hour round trip from the nearest Anglican church. I'd be overjoyed to be able to share in Holy Communion regularly, even carried out in the slightly ham-fisted way it can be in the CofE. Excellent preaching and thoughtful liturgy and beautiful music are beneficial and pleasant, but they pale in comparison to the fact of the Eucharistic celebration.

I am blessed by having a nearby church with beautiful music and excellent preaching. However, I agree with Arethosemyfeet that the Eucharist is what really matters.

Moo

Posted by Indifferently (# 17517) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
How dare I uphold the teaching and doctrine of the Ancient Catholic Church according to the Reformed and Protestant Church of England. The BCP and Articles are not inspired of themselves but derive their infallible authority from the Scriptures and the Fathers interpreting the same.

Being bullied is par for the course if you are an orthodox Christian believer in the C of E today.

But let's not be too scruputous. Our faith is all about bringing people to salvation through Jesus: "If any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous, and he is the propitiation for our sins."

But this is a very mean spirited thread.
I've stood up for orthodox belief and Anglicanism on these boards many times, Indifferently, and I think you are a hateful, narrow-minded idiot and a bigot.

Judge not and ye shall not be judged.

Sorry, that's another anachronism the Authorized Version, the only reliable English-language translation of the scriptures, ousted from our churches because it actually renders the Gospel as intended unlike liberal heretical bibles like NRSV and The Message.

But I fail to see how it is I that is the bigot when I have thus far refrained from hateful personal attacks like your post above.

Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :

Indifferently babbled:

quote:
But I fail to see how it is I that is the bigot when I have thus far refrained from hateful personal attacks like your post above.

It's Hell little one. By posting here you paint a big target on your ample backside.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
How dare I uphold the teaching and doctrine of the Ancient Catholic Church according to the Reformed and Protestant Church of England. The BCP and Articles are not inspired of themselves but derive their infallible authority from the Scriptures and the Fathers interpreting the same.

Being bullied is par for the course if you are an orthodox Christian believer in the C of E today.

But let's not be too scruputous. Our faith is all about bringing people to salvation through Jesus: "If any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous, and he is the propitiation for our sins."

But this is a very mean spirited thread.
I've stood up for orthodox belief and Anglicanism on these boards many times, Indifferently, and I think you are a hateful, narrow-minded idiot and a bigot.
Judge not and ye shall not be judged.

Sorry, that's another anachronism the Authorized Version, the only reliable English-language translation of the scriptures, ousted from our churches because it actually renders the Gospel as intended unlike liberal heretical bibles like NRSV and The Message.

But I fail to see how it is I that is the bigot when I have thus far refrained from hateful personal attacks like your post above.

The Message is a paraphrase, it's not intended to be a Bible. Paraphrases of the Bible were common in medieval times, The Message is just an up-to-date version.

I have certainly never seen The Message being used in churches. Most Anglican churches use the NIV, with some higher churches using the NRSV.

I must say I'm surprised that people as conservative as yourself are in favour of the AV, considering that notorious homosexual James I was behind it, and supposedly Shakespeare (almost certainly at least bisexual) was brought in to bring some of the Psalms into shape. But then I guess for you, James I had Divine Right....did that include the right to have Scripture interpreted for political reasons? Using 'Easter' instead of Passover seems incredibly political.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Elsewhere he babbleth:

"Sexism? Where exactly does this anti-Marxist thought crime appear in the Bible?

Leftists showing their hand again - all the arguments for priestesses and bishopesses have to be secular because the Catholic argument for it is completely non-existent. This is nothing but a Marxist infiltration job and I for one am not fooled."

From which we learn that Indifferently doesn't see anything wrong with sexism, so back to the kitchen you Marxist God-hater and be about your wenchly duties!

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

I was under the impression that 'priestess' and 'bishopess' to describe female priests and bishops was not looked upon kindly on the Ship?

[ 27. June 2013, 13:16: Message edited by: Jade Constable ]

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Elsewhere he babbleth:

"Sexism? Where exactly does this anti-Marxist thought crime appear in the Bible?

Leftists showing their hand again - all the arguments for priestesses and bishopesses have to be secular because the Catholic argument for it is completely non-existent. This is nothing but a Marxist infiltration job and I for one am not fooled."

From which we learn that Indifferently doesn't see anything wrong with sexism, so back to the kitchen you Marxist God-hater and be about your wenchly duties!

You'd think that a member of the Anglican church would value anyone but women in the kitchen, going by our coffee....

Posted by Indifferently (# 17517) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I was under the impression that 'priestess' and 'bishopess' to describe female priests and bishops was not looked upon kindly on the Ship?

In that case I apologize for using these terms.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I was under the impression that 'priestess' and 'bishopess' to describe female priests and bishops was not looked upon kindly on the Ship?
In that case I apologize for using these terms.

But not for the sexism? OK then.

Posted by Indifferently (# 17517) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I was under the impression that 'priestess' and 'bishopess' to describe female priests and bishops was not looked upon kindly on the Ship?
In that case I apologize for using these terms.
But not for the sexism? OK then.

Please show me the biblical basis for this concept you call sexism, and prove that it is not a product of Marxist thought.

Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
Sorry, that's another anachronism the Authorized Version, the only reliable English-language translation of the scriptures, ousted from our churches because it actually renders the Gospel as intended unlike liberal heretical bibles like NRSV and The Message.

Oh dear. Good old KJV-ism. [Roll Eyes]

Tyndale, Luther, the KJV Committee et al worked from the best ancient manuscripts available to them at the time. Scholarship has obviously developed hugely in the last 500 years or so, with ever more access to valuable biblical material. So no, Indifferently, the KJV, magnificent and important as it is, as much as we owe to it, is NOT the most reliable and accurate translation around. Long may it endure, but it's not the translation I use for personal devotion or study. And while I personally favour the NIV, there's nothing 'liberal' about the NRSV. It doesn't whitewash any of the 'difficult' or 'controversial' passages in Scripture. As a formal equivalence translation, it aims, like the ESV, for near-literal accuracy.

quote:
Leftists showing their hand again - all the arguments for priestesses and bishopesses have to be secular because the Catholic argument for it is completely non-existent. This is nothing but a Marxist infiltration job and I for one am not fooled.

This is silly. Quakers had women preachers centuries before Karl Marx was e'er a twinkle in his Daddy's eye.

quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
Please show me the biblical basis for this concept you call sexism, and prove that it is not a product of Marxist thought.

Believing that women are equal with men and accepting women's ordination are not synonymous with Marxism. Says Laurelin, who is no fan of Marxism. But who would have been campaigning for universal suffrage, had she been around in 1913. [Cool]

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I was under the impression that 'priestess' and 'bishopess' to describe female priests and bishops was not looked upon kindly on the Ship?
In that case I apologize for using these terms.
But not for the sexism? OK then.
Please show me the biblical basis for this concept you call sexism, and prove that it is not a product of Marxist thought.

Genesis 1:27 and Galatians 3:28. Those are in the AV, right? Do you agree with universal suffrage, just wondering?

Also, what was your view on King James I the homosexual and Shakespeare the bisexual's roles in the creation of the AV, again?

Posted by Indifferently (# 17517) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I was under the impression that 'priestess' and 'bishopess' to describe female priests and bishops was not looked upon kindly on the Ship?
In that case I apologize for using these terms.
But not for the sexism? OK then.
Please show me the biblical basis for this concept you call sexism, and prove that it is not a product of Marxist thought.
Genesis 1:27 and Galatians 3:28. Those are in the AV, right? Do you agree with universal suffrage, just wondering?

Also, what was your view on King James I the homosexual and Shakespeare the bisexual's roles in the creation of the AV, again?

I'll ignore your revisionist attempt at the homosexualization of history (though I'm sure you believe it).

as for universal suffrage, I don't have much faith in democracy at all really. All it seems to have produced is huge government and socialism.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Indeed. Look how much better it is in those countries that don't have democracy...

I'm not one for quoting Churchill, but he was bang on the money on the subject of democracy.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

Well Indifferently, I was really asking if you think not letting women vote is sexism, or just right and proper?

As for the homosexualization (that's not a word) of history, I don't really have to do it when it was recorded at the time. Hadrian, Edward II, Shakespeare etc did the work for me.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

What do these people think Marxism actually is? Have any of them read anything by Marx? Or even anythign about Marx?

I'm not any kind of Marxist but I don;t go spouting all this bullshit abotu hoiw tghis-that-or-the-other is "Marxist" when it isn't. It would be breaking the 9th commandment, for one thing.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Thou shalt not be an idiot, is the ninth commandment?
If so, Indifferently is doomed to Hades with each post. God will need to reinvent eternity to deal with each offense.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
How dare I uphold the teaching and doctrine of the Ancient Catholic Church according to the Reformed and Protestant Church of England. The BCP and Articles are not inspired of themselves but derive their infallible authority from the Scriptures and the Fathers interpreting the same.

Being bullied is par for the course if you are an orthodox Christian believer in the C of E today.

But let's not be too scruputous. Our faith is all about bringing people to salvation through Jesus: "If any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous, and he is the propitiation for our sins."

But this is a very mean spirited thread.
I've stood up for orthodox belief and Anglicanism on these boards many times, Indifferently, and I think you are a hateful, narrow-minded idiot and a bigot.
Judge not and ye shall not be judged.

Sorry, that's another anachronism the Authorized Version, the only reliable English-language translation of the scriptures, ousted from our churches because it actually renders the Gospel as intended unlike liberal heretical bibles like NRSV and The Message.

But I fail to see how it is I that is the bigot when I have thus far refrained from hateful personal attacks like your post above.

I've also been called into account on these boards for using the good Saint Jim version of the Holy Scriptures too. So it gives me a certain cache when I ask you to shove your KJO psedo-Anglicanism right up your ass where it came from.

I only cited examples of you being a bigot twit, you bigoted twit.

Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :

Is a certain cache a certain type of hiding place?

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PeteC:
Is a certain cache a certain type of hiding place?

It's where old pixels go before they fade away.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

Also, for clarity - Marxism and Marxist-Feminism are not the same thing. Not all Marxists are feminists, not all feminists are Marxists (although the number of Marxist feminists probably outnumbers the number of feminist Marxists).

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I've also been called into account on these boards for using the good Saint Jim version of the Holy Scriptures too.

Wasn't it good KING Jim?

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:
Originally posted by PeteC:
Is a certain cache a certain type of hiding place?
It's where old pixels go before they fade away.

One for the quotes file, methinks.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I've also been called into account on these boards for using the good Saint Jim version of the Holy Scriptures too.
Wasn't it good KING Jim?

I very much hope that someone, somewhere has called it the Queen James Version by accident.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

Well, it's certainly been done on purpose!

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Well, it's certainly been done on purpose!

*updates Christmas list accordingly*

Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Well, it's certainly been done on purpose!

Listens to the sound of devotees' heads exploding

Posted by comet (# 10353) on :

CRACKS HOSTLY WHIP
Seeing as the subject of this Hellcall will be unable to attend the rest of the party, I'm shuttin' 'er down. He's said all sorts of other stupid shit in other places in Hell, however - so feel free to continue the discussion elsewhere. just remember he's currently unable to respond. i.e. don't be too much of a dick.

THREAD CLOSED

comet
HELLHOST

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0