Then your argument is that it is totally logical to claim to follow a
"religion" (such as the ARRL) but yet you are fully in your rights to
remove such pages as are un-suitable to you--but still should be viewed
as logical as you begin picking and choosing exactly what is pertinent
and what is not and following those things in the first mentioned
category only?

Hmmmm, interesting, just too bad we can't do that with the penal code...
or FCC rules and regulations for that matter... it would look more
"logical" to me then...

Warmest regards,
John

wrote in message
oups.com...
John Smith wrote:
bb:

Or, have they torn those pages out of the bible, much in the
same way
gays have torn out the pages calling homosexuality an
abomination?

Which pages of the Bible do we follow, John?

Consider the first chapters of Genesis, where two different
creation stories are told. Both of them cannot be literally
true.

Or read the story of Lot and his family's escape from Sodm and
Gomorrah. Not just the pillar of salt thing but his actions
towards his daughters and their actions towards him.

Abominations? Plenty of them in the Bible - like eating pork,
or any scavengers (that means lobster too), or even rabbits.

Who decides which abominations "modern Christians" have to avoid?