Posted                          

quote:

---

At the stroke of midnight, both my wife and I noticed a sudden lurch in our hitherto blissful mood. We looked at each other with barely concealed spite and envy; we hissed like cats in the night. At five past, I spat out, 'how about divorce?', and she spat back, 'name the day'.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:


At the end of the day, we face our Maker alone.

---

At the end of the day, we face our Maker alongside Jesus.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chorister:
Curiosity Killed: I knew I shouldn't have posted on this thread.
Classic quote - if only more people thought this before posting!

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

---

Those passages are actually really important. The conjugation and the declension are the important parts. Das Rot takes an ~es because it's das Pferd. Das Kind becomes dem Kind in the dative tense. If you threw in another adjective, it would be dem jugen Kind.

Mebbe you already knew that. I'll be quiet now.

It's a while since I last heard reference to the dative tense, rather than case - many thanks for bringing back ancient memories.

But as for the rest of your post. It's appalling. No reference to the poor ablative at all. There it is, stuck at the end of most declensions I've heard. all by its own, no friend to be with and all flows from it. Sheer casist behaviour if you ask em, and I hope that others will join me in expressing outrage at it.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
The following is what happens when you let the damn philosophers take the steering wheel of the Hell bus:

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

All right you two, get a room for your conjugational visitation.

---

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
A discussion in which only one answer is possible sounds tedious, not to mention pointless.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
If Hell were a sex toy shop, this thread would be the blow-up sheep.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Inflatabeastiality. This thread has sunk to a new low, even for Hell.

Well, at least we know what floats Ariston's boat.
Not that we are judging, mind....Oh Hell, yes we are. Jesus Christ on a unicycle, that is just weird. Hey quetz, got a patient for you.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
If Hell were a sex toy shop, this thread would be the blow-up sheep.

---

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posted                       

quote:

---

I can't speak for my US colleagues, but I tend to turn a deaf eye [sic] to the canons because

• They're so bloody bewildering they make Nag Hammadi look like Four Spiritual Laws
• They're so bloody pedantic they make Sharia Law look inviting, and
• market forces (what the people like and/or write settings for) tend to dictate choices far more effectively than some obscure paragraph under Section 5 Subsection D clause 8 Point 3(a) of The Stupid Legislations about How to Pray Act hereinafter called "Stupid Nit-picking regulations made on the hoof at a 1970s Synod"

But you know. That's just me.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Into your hands O merciful Saviour, we commend your servant Ken. Acknowledge, we pray, a sheep of your own fold, a lamb of your own flock, a sinner of your own redeeming. Amen.

o/ Ken, looking forward to the glorious day when you can fully explain to all of us in great detail some theological point, while the Man sits behind you nodding His head along with you. I don't think it will add to your post count though.

Everything will be alright, don't be afraid, love is here.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
This is like saying that both mining and dancing depend on muscular power.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Never mind the thumb or fingertip test, ladies skirts and sermons should test each other...

Long enough to cover the essentials but short enough to be interesting.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Tradition gets you so far, but it is the carrier of the content of belief, not the reason for belief.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by anoesis:
when you are a mobile lactation unit who is also wrist deep in excrement or vomit a number of times a day, no amount of chores/foot massages/deep baths are going to make you want to have any more interface with bodily fluids than you are already having...

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Team Admin has received a directive straight from God informing us the Ariston has a hell of a lot of karma to work off, so we are clamping leg irons on him before he can escape his interim Hell Host position

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by comet:

if the worst anyone ever can say about me is that I'm a fashion accident, I'm letting down my side.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

how deficient we must all be in your sight! How insufficiently arsed!

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Are you both grown men, able to stand on your own two feet?

---

Nope, not me. I'm a brainwashed slave of tradition. I haven't had a rational thought in about a decade. And I understand as objective truth whatever my ecclesial overlords dictate. Sorry to disappoint.
...
Damn. I really shouldn't have talked to you without asking Rome for permission first. There will be beatings, mark my words, there will be beatings. But now you must excuse me - I have to carefully tear these pages out of a bible to have a neat pile of toilet paper available, for whenever our Lord Bishop returns from raping helpless infants in the orphanage. Every word of scripture is useful in that way, you know?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Honestly, just because someone was an evil tyrant doesn't mean they didn't know anything. In fact, I'd say you usually have to be pretty smart to plot your rise to evil tyrant status.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

... anything that didn't move (and sometimes even the cats look worried) ...

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Thinking about barbarisms, many people are guilty of dangling participles.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
How do you get restoration from ἀποκαταστάσεως



Away from (Apo)
going down/according to (Kata)
standing/insurrection (stasis)

---

You can arrive at the meaning of uninflammable by breaking it up:

       un + in + flam + able

and then sussing the sense out as "the quality of being insusceptible to breaking out in flame," but then you leave aside the meaning of "not irascible."

As well, the idea that florescence comes from florescens, or to bloom, helps you in botanical contexts, but it leaves aside the metaphorical meaning of "flourishing", which ill serves you when you run across "florescence" in a paper on salts staining the surface of water-soaked stone (a florescence of salts on the surface). You stray even further afield when you encounter the abbreviation of another form of this Latin word, floruit, when you read "fl. ca. 3rd cent" in some tiny-print footnote. It means "he wrote mostly around the third century."

To get at ἀποκαταστάσεως, when, like me, your license for Greek is restricted largely to doing word studies, you need more help.

The place to start, and probably stop, is to look up ἀποκατάστασις in Newman's Greek-English Dictionary that is bound into many UBS Greek New Testaments. There you find: "restoration", plain and simple. Do stop there.

However, if you are blessed with more books and idle time than sense, you can go to BDAG and read the short article there, which gives you three contexts for the use of the word and a verbal cognate:

1. the return of a heavenly body (e.g., the sun) to its starting point,
2. the return of a thing to its perfection (the sense here), or,
3. in diplomatic documents, the return of a governmental state to "normal conditions and stability" (the sense in Acts 1:6, "restore the kingdom to Israel").

If you are sick abed, but not that sick, you can continue on to Louw & Nida's semantic domains dictionary of the NT to find that the verb is used in Mk. 3:5 ("he stretched out his hand and it was restored" or "healed").

All these books should be found in your local seminary library reference section.

That, my dear Evensong, is how you get "restoration" from ἀποκαταστάσεως. (The bit about healing was welcomed news to me. Thank you.)

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twangist:
"Spiritual attack" is often charismatic-ese for "bad luck".

---

"Bad luck" is often the Pagan-ese for "spiritual attack".

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You know, an underdog is someone in a difficult position through circumstances beyond there control. Not some who starts on level ground, then grabs a shovel and starts digging.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
There's:

literal
literal literal
literally literal
literal but not literal
woodenly literal
literal but not woodenly literal
not so much literal as literal
infallibly literal
literally infallible
literal but not infallible
inerrant but not infallible
literally inerrant but not literally infallible
infallibly literal but not inerrant
inherently literal
literal, where 'literal' means literal
alliterative
lateral
Lateran
Later
Late
La
La
La
I
Can't
Hear
You

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by BroJames:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Squirrel:
They still preach things like biblical inherency,

---

Is that the dogma that you should inherit a Bible rather than buy one for yourself?

---

No, no you're thinking of biblical inheritancy. Biblical inherency is the belief that whatever I believe is inherently present in the Bible (even if it's not obvious to anyone else) because my beliefs are inerrant and cannot be contradicted by the Bible.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
OK, I can't take it anymore-- can someone tell me what "releasing redemption" even means?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
Releasing things, like prophecy, "words"(or in this case redemption) is a charismatic affectation which is designed to lend importance to what they say and, of course, to themselves.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
So, is it like the way a company releases a new version of software?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Snags:
I seriously hope my redemption isn't in beta ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
What do you think Alpha courses are for?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Is this the wrong time to point to studies which indicate people are generally not as intelligent as they presume?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:
And if it is the right time, is it intelligent to tell people that one when of them is an admin?

(Besides, they're both easier to manage for the rest of us when they're deluded.)

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Indeed, there is an open question why, if the Church is a body, that body needs so many arseholes.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:
Karl, posing the pertinent questions that we all think, but daren't ask.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Indeed, there is an open question why, if the Church is a body, that body needs so many arseholes.

---

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:
Karl, posing the pertinent questions that we all think, but daren't ask.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Indeed, there is an open question why, if the Church is a body, that body needs so many arseholes.

---

---

I can't claim credit for that one. It's one of my vicar's favourite sayings.

---

Your vicar gets a from me!

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by passer:
...which implies that the rest of the boards are all conducted in the style of some kind of ghastly mediaeval pavane.

---

More like a tarantella at times, but most of the time something like a barn dance in the village hall, with competent dancers taking it seriously, others just participating for fun, gatecrashers coming and going, fights being dealt with by security, drunks trying to play the band's instruments, couples' spats (with or without tears), someone trying to spike the punch, and a steady stream of girls going to the toilets together.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
You and the bloody underdog-defender are spectacularly bad at giving any kind of criterion for identifying this dogpiling other than 'the bits I don't like'.

---

FWIW, I have no particular attachment to underdogs, but I still consider the regular dog-piling in Hell to be (1) evident and (2) unhelpful.

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
The whole reason for asking you about this stuff is that I'm a Host, and I'm holding out the ever-so-faint hope that either of you have some meaningful food for thought here. You don't. You have a vague vibe that says that people heatedly expressing their opinion is absolutely fine until a number of people heatedly express the same opinion in agreement with each other.

---

You are confusing individual and group behaviour. Let us for the sake of argument assume that it is licit or even helpful for individual Shipmates to scream abuse at each other in Hell. It is then of course the case that by the usual principles of equal treatment for all, every single individual of say a group of twenty Shipmates is perfectly in their rights to scream abuse at one particular Shipmate, the one at the bottom of the dog pile. At least they certainly all can be within their rights, if they are genuinely outraged etc.

This however does not mean at all that there is no difference in the cumulative effect. Being shouted at by twenty just is different from being shouted at by one or two. And of course, you yourself have acknowledged that already. Except that you tried to construct a cumulative outcome that is somehow positive. Your claim was that because the person at the bottom of the dog pile sees very different people scream at them about the same thing, people that perhaps usually rather scream at each other, they will realise that the critique is justified. Consequently, they will reconsider their behaviour, reform themselves and the world will become a better place.

That is ... possible. It probably even has happened in the living memory of the present Shipmates. It is however not very likely at all. Other things are a lot more likely, and generally the outcomes are not positive. A lot of people will simply be intimidated by so much opposition. This may lead to them not showing up, or "flouncing" at the first opportunity, or issuing a fake apology just to get out. Any sort of real dialogue gets no chance there at all. Other people will think "the more, the merrier" and will produce sheer endless and enormously repetitive threads as they take on everybody in turn. Since it is near impossible to "peace out" so many people at once, this ends usually just in mindless exhaustion when really nobody can even bear turning to they latest post on page 15+. Other people feed on the aggressive emotions raised, and will attempt to derail any such thread into their favourite little corner of hate and abuse. The more people are screaming at each other, the easier it becomes to find a pivot point to turn the debate onto a tangent. Etc.

There are also other effects that one can consider good or bad (though I personally consider them mostly bad). For example, the sheer number of voices raised against someone can greatly encourage yet another person to join the chorus. It appears then, simply by virtue of numbers, to have become socially acceptable or even virtuous to attack this particular person. One could argue that this will help some timid people to genuinely express their anger. But frankly, I think it mostly just unleashes a kind of negative creativity: as the others are so nicely beating on that person, let me find some new angle where I can hit them as well. And as these things go, doing such things often creates its own justification, i.e., one convinces oneself that the nasty things one says are well deserved because if they weren't one surely would not have said them.

There is, in fact, very little value to adding more and more emotionally charged voices to a discussion. This generally adds little content (most of the contributions are of the type "damn right, and here's another example of how this person is bad in this way"), and simply pours on group pressure. Two people might find a way to negotiate their difficulties in a reasonable manner. It is however rather unlikely that anything resembling a fair process will happen between one person on one side, and a dozen on the other. The balance of power is just too uneven. There is a lot of relentless pressure on the single person, but almost none on the members of the group. They can always reassure each other that they are in the right, they have no real need to question their own role.

There is of course one final justification that can be given for the dog pile, and that is that it acts as a kind of purification mechanism. That is to say, while the process itself is rather obviously one-sided and unfair, at least in the long term it eliminates the worst offenders. Apart from the question whether the end can justify the means, experience however tells us otherwise. The worst offenders usually don't care about dog piles, in fact, it seems that some of them positively delight in getting yet another one on top of them. All attention is good attention...

<snip>

Anyway, if Evensong is indeed rather absurdly helping ever "underdog", regardless of their actual position, then this need not have anything to do with a crazy kind of egalitarian / anarchic approach to opinion. It can simply be considered as a kind of passive resistance to the systemic unfairness of Hell. You could argue that complaining about Hell is supposed to be done in Styx, not by messing with Hell. Well, that is officially the case. However, trying to change the Ship via posting in Styx is, shall we say, an uphill battle. Where the hill in question is Olympus Mons. Whereas the pretensions of Hell to be a kind of everything goes place make it rather easy to mess with it. So it would be entirely understandable if people who don't like the current Hell are trying to subvert it. Perhaps Evensong simply needs to be a bit more subtle about that...

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tubbs:
Jesus tossed tables, threw money all over the place and shouted whilst waving a whip of cords whilst cleansing the Temple. When pondering WWJD, it's comforting to know that this is within the realms of possibility.

---