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

"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?

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

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

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 -

"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 -

Brian Oakley wrote:

SNIP huge amounts of nonsense

And PLONK.

tom
K0TAR

Brian Oakley wrote:

"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.

There are many people today who profess to be Christains, yet most of
their beliefs are straight old testament.



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.

No, it isn't ad hominum. Put another way, there is a lot of evidence
that points to the theory of evolution as fact. Things change. The
related disciplines that verify the concept are likewise wrong if Evo
is. All it will take to prove evolution wrong is if say modern humans
are found in very early sediments along with the critters we've found
there to date. But the evidence shows a forward movement of time, and
never backwards. Modern animals only appear in recent times. Ancient
ones show a terrmination. Those anomalies such as animals that haven't
changed much, or "rediscovered" animals once thought extinct are just
wonderous additions to life.



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??

Ohh careful there. Creationists who use the weak form of Intelligent
design claim the possibility of aliens creating life here.

But the entire argument in that regard is specious anyhow. Evolution has
not one single thing to say about the ultimate beginning of life. It
only deals with what happens afterward.



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.

Okay, you have no blind faith? Do a lot of investigating of the physics
and chemistry and paleontology. Come up with experiments and refute it.

Intelligent design has performed no science, no peer reviewed research,
with the exception of one report that was immediately refuted.

Instead, the Intelligent design folks want to debate. Strangely enough,
that debate is envisioned as proving something. If evolution loses the
debate, is there no evolution. If it wins, is their no God?

Here's a good idea. Instead of taking peoples money and trying to get ID
insertd into schools curriculum, take that money and do good research!

Most distressing howevwer is the duality of the IDer's approach. the
switching between the weak ID that is brought out when trying to sneak
their belief into school science programs, (teach the controversy) and
the very same people saying that they want to replace the system as
taught now with science that is in alignment with the Christian faith.

I don't think God needs or wants anyone lying for him.



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.

Don't know what to say here, Brian. Some times it's literal, some times
it's not, and sometimes we just pick and choose.


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

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

The spherical earth concept started around 330 B.C. It was well known
during the middle ages. Oddly enough the resurgent Flat Earth, promoter,
Samuel Rowbotham, came up with his "Zoetitic Astronomy" system, in
around the mid 1800's which depended on his particular interpretation of
the Bible. Interestingly enough, in the 1800's he engaged in public
debates with leading scientists. One doesn't prove the other, of course,
but it's interesting to see that the more things change, the more they
remain the same.

I really don't want to belabor the group with much more of this, we need
to get back to discussions of Art's antenna designs.

All I would say is that I would suggest some personal research, and
repeat that evolution doesn't have a thing to do with origin, so just
perhaps, there are people out there who might want to manipulate others
with a red herring of an issue.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Michael Coslo wrote:
Put another way, there is a lot of evidence
that points to the theory of evolution as fact.

Rhetorical question: What if evolution is just
one of the tools in God's toolbox?
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote:
Put another way, there is a lot of evidence that points to the theory
of evolution as fact.

Rhetorical question: What if evolution is just
one of the tools in God's toolbox?

Of no consequence. There is no reason that an ominesccnt deity couldn't
make things, then allow them to change in response to their surroundings.

Evolution makes no claims to origins.


- 73 de Mike N3LI -