American interpretation
 

"Tom Donaly" wrote in message
...
Brian Oakley wrote:

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
Brian Oakley wrote:
As Jesus was the fulfillment of the Law, his choice to forgive is
what is true. The penalty was paid. There was a death for the
adultery.

So why is the Old Testament included in The Bible
if Jesus rendered it meaningless and irrelevant?
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Because its not meaningless and irrelavent. Its there to show you why
Jesus had to come. He is the fulfillment of the Law. If He is the
fullfillment, then you have to understand what is in the Law and why He
had to fulfill it. The OT is there to point to Jesus in every book.
B

Pure heresy! There's no way for you to know whether that is true or
not. You're wasting your time trying to find purpose in religious
scripture. As Alexander Pope wrote in his An Essay on Man: Epistle II:
"Know then thyself, presume not God to scan, The proper study of
mankind is man"
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

I don't worship Alexander Pope.
I would agree that we can't judge God. We can't even judge ourselves let
alone properly judge each other. There is better love out there than "just
a piece of skin".

Darwin makes quite a leap from finches to "primordial ooze". Even in the
simplest of life forms an orchestra of machinery sustains the life. If any
piece is missing, the life can't be supported. So to believe that all
sprang up by accident, ready to reproduce from a rock seems to be an
unsupported religious belief in itself. But the Atheist will say this is
proof there is no God and leave it at that. Seems unscientific at best, but
then Hitler, Marx, The Columbine Kids and Manifest Destiny all embraced it.
Who's next?

American interpretation
 

On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 22:07:21 -0700, "Tom Donaly"
wrote:

As Alexander Pope wrote in his An Essay on Man: Epistle II:
"Know then thyself, presume not God to scan, The proper study of
mankind is man"

Hi Tom,

You are proving a rising tide deluges derelicts.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

American interpretation
 

Richard Clark wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 22:07:21 -0700, "Tom Donaly"
wrote:

As Alexander Pope wrote in his An Essay on Man: Epistle II:
"Know then thyself, presume not God to scan, The proper study of
mankind is man"

Hi Tom,

You are proving a rising tide deluges derelicts.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Hi Richard,
Hopefully.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

American interpretation
 

JB wrote:
"Tom Donaly" wrote in message
...
Brian Oakley wrote:
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
Brian Oakley wrote:
As Jesus was the fulfillment of the Law, his choice to forgive is
what is true. The penalty was paid. There was a death for the
adultery.
So why is the Old Testament included in The Bible
if Jesus rendered it meaningless and irrelevant?
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com
Because its not meaningless and irrelavent. Its there to show you why
Jesus had to come. He is the fulfillment of the Law. If He is the
fullfillment, then you have to understand what is in the Law and why He
had to fulfill it. The OT is there to point to Jesus in every book.
B
Pure heresy! There's no way for you to know whether that is true or
not. You're wasting your time trying to find purpose in religious
scripture. As Alexander Pope wrote in his An Essay on Man: Epistle II:
"Know then thyself, presume not God to scan, The proper study of
mankind is man"
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

I don't worship Alexander Pope.
I would agree that we can't judge God. We can't even judge ourselves let
alone properly judge each other. There is better love out there than "just
a piece of skin".

Darwin makes quite a leap from finches to "primordial ooze". Even in the
simplest of life forms an orchestra of machinery sustains the life. If any
piece is missing, the life can't be supported. So to believe that all
sprang up by accident, ready to reproduce from a rock seems to be an
unsupported religious belief in itself. But the Atheist will say this is
proof there is no God and leave it at that. Seems unscientific at best, but
then Hitler, Marx, The Columbine Kids and Manifest Destiny all embraced it.
Who's next?


You don't worship Pope and probably haven't read him, either. Hitler was
a Christian, as was Savonarola, and King Leopold II of Belgium. There
was even a Fundie dictator in Guatemala, whose name escapes me, but who
was also a mass murderer. It's o.k. if you want to believe the universe
is only 6000 years old. Fine. It's also o.k. if you want to believe
you're morally superior to everyone you disagree with. But this is an
antenna newsgroup, not a holier-than-thou newsgroup. Unless you can
relate how God's Plan for the Universe includes antenna theory
revelations that will change Ham-radio-as-we-know-it-forever, take your
self-congratulatory theology to another venue.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

American interpretation
 

Mike Coslo wrote:

Brian Oakley wrote:

Just what makes you think its supposed to be ok?


It wasn't exactly condemned now was it?

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Uh, if you read closely, thats a narrative of what took place. Life
happens, good and bad. This is what the Bible is about, the good, the
bad, and the ugly. It has nothing to hide about people and they wrong
they do. If God doesnt jump in and throw down a thunderbolt or two, you
think that means He thinks its ok? Im sorry, but you really dont
understand much about God or the Bible by showing that kind of
thinking. Surely youre not that naive. I think youre just biased, which
is ok, but at least admit it.


We have a lot of things declared as abominations in the bible, we have a
lot of things on the OT that condemn people to death also. Considering
how some of these things are latched onto by those who would promote
themselves as the holy these days, I find it a little amusing. I also
see those folks more as Pharisees.

If you want to know my bias, read the Sermon on the Mount. Most of the
rest is dross.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Just what we need on the ham antenna newsgroup - a rambling thread on
the meaning of the bible.. Come on, there are better places for your
pseudophilosophical ramblings.

Maybe I can connect my dipoles on sky hooks?

W0BF

American interpretation
 

JB wrote:
"Tom Donaly" wrote in message
...
Brian Oakley wrote:
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message

Darwin makes quite a leap from finches to "primordial ooze".

He makes no such leap.


Even in the
simplest of life forms an orchestra of machinery sustains the life. If any
piece is missing, the life can't be supported.


No. There are many processes that make up portions of life forms that
are quite complex, yet still function if portions go missing the Blood
Clotting cascade is one such example.

The eye has been a poster child of Creationists, yet it is at root a
reaction to an energy input. There is a clear progression from simple
bacterial to raptor vision (we humans do not have the "best eyes" in
creation)


So to believe that all
sprang up by accident, ready to reproduce from a rock seems to be an
unsupported religious belief in itself.

There is a straw man for sure. Life such as it is never sprung from a
rock. A lot of things had to happen first.


But the Atheist will say this is
proof there is no God and leave it at that.

Straw man again. Atheism is not in any way shape or form a requirement
to support the idea that evolution is the method in which life forms
adapt to their surroundings. There is no proof that there is no God.



Seems unscientific at best, but
then Hitler, Marx, The Columbine Kids and Manifest Destiny all embraced it.
Who's next?


Good heavens JB!. Could you provide the citations about the Columbine
kids views on Evolution? Shame. May they rest in peace.

Hitler was interesting here are a few quotes:

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter."

Munich, 1922

"We are a people of different faiths, but we are one. Which faith
conquers the other is not the question; rather, the question is whether
Christianity stands or falls.... We tolerate no one in our ranks who
attacks the ideas of Christianity... in fact our movement is Christian.
We are filled with a desire for Catholics and Protestants to discover
one another in the deep distress of our own people."

Passau, 1928

I guess he didn't care for the Sermon on the Mount!

And the roots of Manifest destiny can be traced John Winthrop's "City
upon a Hill" sermon in 1630.

If you choose to believe that evolution is false, that is fine, but we
are at the point in the argument where the statement is sufficient
argument of disbelief. There is too much evidence supporting evolution,
and no science disproving it. It takes almost as much faith to not
believe in evolution now as it does to believe in a flat earth.

Creationists have unwittingly be one of the greatest forces in research
in evolution, as their searching for "faults" in the theory have served
as a spur to scientists and research.

Too often, Creationists assume the binary decision, in that anything
that is not presently explained by science relating to evolutionary
processes means that Evolution is wrong, so the only other choice is
Creationism.

But seriously the religious argument can be summed up in a satisfactory
manner by saying "I do not believe in evolution, I have faith that God
created everything in it's present form." And that is okay. I respect
your faith.

But insisting on s literal translation of the two different accounts of
creation in Genesis, is just as wrong as the flat earth of four
corners, the shape of the world as witnessed by T-O maps, the church's
shabby treatment of Bruno and Galileo, and other "threats" to religion,
however. The earth rotates around the sun, just as it always has. The
truth was in fact no threat at all.


Back to antennas now.......

- Mike N3LI -

American interpretation
 

Bruce W. Ellis wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:

Brian Oakley wrote:

Just what makes you think its supposed to be ok?

It wasn't exactly condemned now was it?

- 73 de Mike N3LI -
Uh, if you read closely, thats a narrative of what took place. Life
happens, good and bad. This is what the Bible is about, the good, the
bad, and the ugly. It has nothing to hide about people and they wrong
they do. If God doesnt jump in and throw down a thunderbolt or two, you
think that means He thinks its ok? Im sorry, but you really dont
understand much about God or the Bible by showing that kind of
thinking. Surely youre not that naive. I think youre just biased, which
is ok, but at least admit it.

We have a lot of things declared as abominations in the bible, we have a
lot of things on the OT that condemn people to death also. Considering
how some of these things are latched onto by those who would promote
themselves as the holy these days, I find it a little amusing. I also
see those folks more as Pharisees.

If you want to know my bias, read the Sermon on the Mount. Most of the
rest is dross.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Just what we need on the ham antenna newsgroup - a rambling thread on
the meaning of the bible.. Come on, there are better places for your
pseudophilosophical ramblings.


What kind of mail reader do you use, I can look up how you can plonk me
and never hear from me again!

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

American interpretation
 

snip


You don't worship Pope and probably haven't read him, either. Hitler was a
Christian, as was Savonarola, and King Leopold II of Belgium. There was
even a Fundie dictator in Guatemala, whose name escapes me, but who was
also a mass murderer. It's o.k. if you want to believe the universe is
only 6000 years old. Fine. It's also o.k. if you want to believe you're
morally superior to everyone you disagree with. But this is an antenna
newsgroup, not a holier-than-thou newsgroup. Unless you can relate how
God's Plan for the Universe includes antenna theory revelations that will
change Ham-radio-as-we-know-it-forever, take your self-congratulatory
theology to another venue.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Jesus said that not all that claim Him are His:

Matthew 7:15-23, "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's
clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by
their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so
every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth
evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a
corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth
good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits
ye shall know them. Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall
enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father
which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we
not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy
name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never
knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

Thus, according to Jesus Himself, Hitler could not have been a Christian.
As for those Christians that have a "holier-than-thou" attitude, maybe you
dont know very many Christians.
If this is an antenna forum, Im sure you will not care to respond to this.

God bless you Tom.
B

American interpretation
 

"Michael Coslo" wrote in message
...
JB wrote:
"Tom Donaly" wrote in message
...
Brian Oakley wrote:
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message

Darwin makes quite a leap from finches to "primordial ooze".

He makes no such leap.

No that was left to the pseudointellectuals.



Even in the
simplest of life forms an orchestra of machinery sustains the life. If
any
piece is missing, the life can't be supported.


No. There are many processes that make up portions of life forms that are
quite complex, yet still function if portions go missing the Blood
Clotting cascade is one such example.

But those processes are complex in themselves and will fail if reduced any
further.


The eye has been a poster child of Creationists, yet it is at root a
reaction to an energy input. There is a clear progression from simple
bacterial to raptor vision (we humans do not have the "best eyes" in
creation)

But that doesnt prove the human eye evolved from one a bacteria had. Even
that sensory cell that the bacteria had would cease to function if the
components of that cell were not all present and functioning.



So to believe that all
sprang up by accident, ready to reproduce from a rock seems to be an
unsupported religious belief in itself.

There is a straw man for sure. Life such as it is never sprung from a
rock. A lot of things had to happen first.

But it had to. If there were something there that was strictly mineral that
somehow, some way, in some miraclulous way turned into a living organism,
then it still originated from minerals.


But the Atheist will say this is
proof there is no God and leave it at that.

Straw man again. Atheism is not in any way shape or form a requirement to
support the idea that evolution is the method in which life forms adapt to
their surroundings. There is no proof that there is no God.

He didnt say that atheism is a requirement. He said that atheists will say
that.




Seems unscientific at best, but
then Hitler, Marx, The Columbine Kids and Manifest Destiny all embraced
it.
Who's next?


Good heavens JB!. Could you provide the citations about the Columbine kids
views on Evolution? Shame. May they rest in peace.

This might interest you:
Eric -- Black fatigue-style pants, a white T-shirt inscribed with the words
Natural Selection on the front, black baseball cap with the letters "KMFDM"
on it (worn backwards), and a black trenchcoat (duster). Wore a black
fingerless glove on his right hand and black combat boots.


Hitler was interesting here are a few quotes:

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter."

Munich, 1922

"We are a people of different faiths, but we are one. Which faith conquers
the other is not the question; rather, the question is whether
Christianity stands or falls.... We tolerate no one in our ranks who
attacks the ideas of Christianity... in fact our movement is Christian. We
are filled with a desire for Catholics and Protestants to discover one
another in the deep distress of our own people."

Passau, 1928

Read "Hitlers Cross" by Lutzer to understand that Hitler was a manipulator,
especially of the Church. Also read the following:

Matthew 7:15-23, "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's
clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by
their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so
every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth
evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a
corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth
good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits
ye shall know them. Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall
enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father
which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we
not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy
name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never
knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

I guess he didn't care for the Sermon on the Mount!

That quote is from the same One who gave the Sermon on the Mount. Hitler
was NOT a Christian.


And the roots of Manifest destiny can be traced John Winthrop's "City upon
a Hill" sermon in 1630.

If you choose to believe that evolution is false, that is fine, but we are
at the point in the argument where the statement is sufficient argument of
disbelief. There is too much evidence supporting evolution, and no science
disproving it.

If you would be intellectually honest, you would see that there is a lot of
evidence that goes against evolution.

It takes almost as much faith to not believe in evolution now as it does to
believe in a flat earth.

An ad hominem attack.


Creationists have unwittingly be one of the greatest forces in research in
evolution, as their searching for "faults" in the theory have served as a
spur to scientists and research.

Too often, Creationists assume the binary decision, in that anything that
is not presently explained by science relating to evolutionary processes
means that Evolution is wrong, so the only other choice is Creationism.

Ok, what other mechanisms do you think there are? Aliens??


But seriously the religious argument can be summed up in a satisfactory
manner by saying "I do not believe in evolution, I have faith that God
created everything in it's present form." And that is okay. I respect your
faith.

But you pretend that it is a blind faith, and that is also intellectually
dishonest. There are many reasons for that faith, and intelligent design is
a very good one.


But insisting on s literal translation of the two different accounts of
creation in Genesis,

Ther are no two different accounts. Its one in the same account. The Bible
is not always cronological.

is just as wrong as the flat earth of four corners,

Ancient civilization knew the earth was spherical. The Egyptians understood
this.

As for four corners, that is a saying along the lines as "where does the sun
rise?". Its an expression.

the shape of the world as witnessed by T-O maps, the church's shabby
treatment of Bruno and Galileo, and other "threats" to religion, however.
The earth rotates around the sun, just as it always has. The truth was in
fact no threat at all.

Exactly.



Back to antennas now.......

- Mike N3LI -

American interpretation
 

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce W. Ellis"
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 4:55 PM
Subject: American interpretation


Mike Coslo wrote:

Brian Oakley wrote:

Just what makes you think its supposed to be ok?


It wasn't exactly condemned now was it?

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Uh, if you read closely, thats a narrative of what took place. Life
happens, good and bad. This is what the Bible is about, the good, the
bad, and the ugly. It has nothing to hide about people and they wrong
they do. If God doesnt jump in and throw down a thunderbolt or two, you
think that means He thinks its ok? Im sorry, but you really dont
understand much about God or the Bible by showing that kind of
thinking. Surely youre not that naive. I think youre just biased, which
is ok, but at least admit it.


We have a lot of things declared as abominations in the bible, we have a
lot of things on the OT that condemn people to death also. Considering
how some of these things are latched onto by those who would promote
themselves as the holy these days, I find it a little amusing. I also
see those folks more as Pharisees.

If you want to know my bias, read the Sermon on the Mount. Most of the
rest is dross.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Just what we need on the ham antenna newsgroup - a rambling thread on
the meaning of the bible.. Come on, there are better places for your
pseudophilosophical ramblings.

Seems everyone has an opinion, and they sure dont mind voicing it. But if it
goes in a direction they dont like, they are quick to point that this is not
the place. I guess your qseudointellectual diatribe is king here. So be it.



W0BF