I am unclear, but I think the God doesn't give you more than you can handle thing is a misquote. I Corinithians 10:13 talks about not being tempted more than you can bear, but that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish than suffering.

Not exactly, the original Greek carries the meaning of suffering a trial (the root verb means "to pierce through"). I think you're right that it gets misread these days only to include suffering things that we regard negatively, by which I mean it doesn't get applied as naturally to being, for want of a better word, bribed into wrongdoing. (And I'm sure Paul regarded resisting such temptations as worthy of being deemed a trial.) However, I don't think it would be accurate either to read it as not talking about the trials of faith that arise from suffering (such as despair, rage, self-pity, what have you).

Now, I do think it gets misused. It was clearly intended by Paul to encourage people facing trials (whether of the ouch ouch make it stop variety, or the sexy funtimes this will go straight to your hips variety). I doubt he would've approved of people then judging how well others managed their grief/pain/rock'n'roller lifestyle. ("I give it an 8. Decent technique, a bit of flair, but shaky on the dismount.") The verse is relevant to the notion of divine judgment, however, insofar as such judgment becomes unjust if the subject were in fact unable to escape becoming a sinner. Given the tendency of people to judge t IRONY ALERT , it's not surprising this verse gets misused to look down on people who have been broken by suffering.

Another direction in which it gets poorly applied is by conflating it with a prosperity gospel, and here we really get to blame the victim. Because then, if you suffer some loss, and you don't actually bounce back but your life turns to crap thereafter, must be because you didn't maintain a positive attitude and treat it like the growth experience it was obviously meant to be.

It isn't a platitude, but I don't get it-it's the exception that proves the rule. How the fuck does that make any sense? Can we have some science up in this shit?

I feel like that's actually an archaic use of "prove" or some shit. Maybe it's a test? I forget, and don't feel like googling.

Doesn't that come from how every rule is supposed to have an exception? So you know it's a rule if you find one? Or something equally dumb like that?

But that's not what people mean when they say it. They use it as confirmation, not challenge.

But we know people are dumb.

Jessica, I hope you replied, "My hair is blue, fuckstick."

"The exception proves the rule" was originally (and much more coherently) about legal exceptions.

A sign announcing 'Free parking on Sunday' should lead one to conclude that on every other day of the week there will be a charge levied for leaving one's car in that spot. The posted exception, therefore proves (demonstrates) that at other times the rule is in effect.

[link]

I took a politcal quiz wherein I am too the left of GANDHI, so I doubt American politicians will satisfy me.

Mah sistah!

I remember separate b/c I misspelled it in a spelling bee. That and "asthmatic" I will never forget.

They have about half a dozen special needs kids, and last I saw them, she was pregnant again and very proud.

Uh. Wow.

I'm sure there's a twibbon for that, Jessica. Well done.

Is that the same proof as the proof of the pudding that's in the eating? I want to say it is, but the legal exception thing is pretty compelling and doesn't seem to apply to puddings.