Page 2 of 2

Posted: Wed Apr 11, 2012 10:54 pm
by bamaboy56
Very interesting discussion! Been out of pocket for a few days because of work and am catching up with the Goodwords. I Googled The Brooklyn Tabernacle Choir and found several interesting sites, including several youtube videos. Great music! According to the websites I saw, this non-denominational church is named The Brooklyn Tabernacle, hence the name of the choir. Remember the discussion not long ago about megachurches? That description came to mind when I saw the videos. Again, beautiful choir and beautiful music. The videos were captioned in Portuguese, which I thought was odd. Philip H. is right about there being no relation to The Mormon Tabernacle Choir. I also agree with him about the importance of not belittling anyone's religious beliefs. Not cool. I've already seen some vitriol on TV concerning some LDS beliefs, now that it appears that Romney will be the sure-enough challenger against the incumbent. I hope it doesn't get any worse, although I expect it will before it's all over with. Sad. That's as close as I'm planning on getting to discussing these two difficult topics: politics and religion.

Posted: Thu Apr 12, 2012 12:06 am
by Slava
Very interesting discussion! Been out of pocket for a few days because of work and am catching up with the Goodwords.
Ah, "out of pocket"? I've always known this phrase as meaning something referring to finances. How does it apply here?

Posted: Thu Apr 12, 2012 12:20 am
by bamaboy56
Merely a figure of speech, referring to me being away from this site for a few days. I could just as easily have said I was "off the grid", "unavailable" or "lost in space". It's good to be back among friends.

Posted: Thu Apr 12, 2012 10:35 am
by Philip Hudson
It looks as if we will have a presidential candidate who is a Mormon. I remember the outcry when President Kennedy ran for and was elected president. There was concern that his being a Roman Catholic Christian might interfere with his being our president. He did a great job defusing this concern in talking directly with Protestant leaders. The Constitution is clear that there shall be no religious test to hold public office. The decision the individual citizen makes in her/his own mind is, of course, up to the citizen. Religious discussion belongs in the "public square". Religious rancor and personal condemnation of a religion or a member of a religion should be avoided. I can give you an anecdote about an actual fistfight in the pulpit, but not on this forum.

Several of us in this forum are religion scholars. We can all attest to elements of religion on this forum, but we should not directly proselytize on this forum. We can use other venues if we wish to share our faith with the goal of converting the reader.

I am open to extensive religious conversation. Send me a message.

Posted: Thu Apr 12, 2012 11:31 am
by misterdoe
I can remember hearing, ever since I was a little boy, that we should avoid discussions about politics and reiligion. But I've learned that I can discuss politics, religion, race, ethnicity, all of those "sensitive" issues, as long as you deal with the other person (and any "opposing" viewpoints) with respect. This forum has been one of the few where such subjects have come up and been treated with respect no matter the viewpoint. Even when we make reference to disparaging comments made elsewhere. :)

Posted: Thu Apr 12, 2012 12:03 pm
by LukeJavan8
I can remember hearing, ever since I was a little boy, that we should avoid discussions about politics and reiligion. But I've learned that I can discuss politics, religion, race, ethnicity, all of those "sensitive" issues, as long as you deal with the other person (and any "opposing" viewpoints) with respect. This forum has been one of the few where such subjects have come up and been treated with respect no matter the viewpoint. Even when we make reference to disparaging comments made elsewhere. :)

Very appropriate comment, from my point of view. Thanks.

Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2012 9:40 pm
by Slava
Philip Hudson mentioned the JFK religion debate above. In case anyone wants to hear the speech, it's here. Truly one of the greatest speeches I've ever heard.

Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2012 9:43 pm
by Slava
I can remember hearing, ever since I was a little boy, that we should avoid discussions about politics and religion.
I've always heard these as the two topics you don't discuss at the dinner table. They obviously must be discussed, or we'd never get anywhere.

TABERNACLE

Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2012 10:39 pm
by Dr. Goodword
Going back to the original topic, the meaning of 'tabernacle', originally "tent", I saw a wonderful movie last night: "When do We Eat?" A bit off-the-wall, but interesting an entertaining. It subtitle is "My Big Fat Jewish Seder". It you enjoyed "My Bit Fat Greek Wedding," as I did, you will pick up the theme. It is about a family getting together for their annual seder, but this year they hold it in a tent, or tabernacle in the original sense of the word. If you subscribe to NetFlix, you can stream it or order the DVD.

Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 6:48 am
by call_copse
Very interesting discussion! Been out of pocket for a few days because of work and am catching up with the Goodwords.
Ah, "out of pocket"? I've always known this phrase as meaning something referring to finances. How does it apply here?
Note: Off topic

Hi Slava - I too was intrigued by this, having never heard the phrase used in this way - to me 'I am out of pocket' means 'I have incurred a notable loss', or one might refer to out of pocket expenses - i.e. expenses you pay for to potentially reclaim later.

Imagine then my surprise then to note bamaboy56's usage listed here as far back as 2008:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p ... f%20pocket

In a way I get the 'out of line' meaning also mentioned more than the 'off the radar' meaning - I really cannot see how that has been arrived at.

Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:14 am
by Philip Hudson
Re: out of pocket.

The English language is full of idioms so it is not surprising that an idiom exists with two meanings. They may be two coincidental idioms or one may have derived from the other. The two meanings of "out of pocket" suggest independent origins. I have heard "out of pocket" to mean misplaced, away from home, etc. for many years. Only recently have I heard it to mean a personal expense. The difference could be from regional or cultural diversity. I don't believe I have ever used the idiom myself.

Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 12:48 pm
by Perry Lassiter
On the possibility of regional variants, I was surprised some had not heard of the meaning "unavailable." I have always thought that in pocket would mean where one could be easily reached. An out of pocket expence is one that is paid from your own resources rather than by your company or insurance. In the same way out of pocket means you are not in your usual haunts and cannot be reached in the usual way. With the onset of ubiquitous cell phones, that usage may dwindle. Regarding money, I have heard it all my life. Referring to location, probably the last thirty years.

Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 7:28 pm
by bamaboy56
call_copse said:
In a way I get the 'out of line' meaning also mentioned more than the 'off the radar' meaning - I really cannot see how that has been arrived at.
I've always heard "out of line" being used when someone has done something wrong, while being "off the radar" was used to mean something being done in a secretive way. I've heard that term used in the same vein as "flying under the radar", again meaning something being done in a secretive or undetectable way. Funny how different areas have different idioms. I've used "out of pocket" all my life, meaning being away from a site for a while. I've also heard it in the sense of expenses one has to furnish for himself/herself but I've used in mainly in the former sense. Thanks call_copse for the urban dictionary link. Interesting! Also to Phillip H. for your comments. Could be just a regional thang!