|
ENOUGH OF THIS!!!
NoGodForMe wrote:
Fairy tales, Fairy tales. You know, I usually try to stay away from this crap because I know a certain park is slanted to the Christian side. But when this crap keeps happening, then you realize what the goal is. To convert as many as possible. They don't care if you have problems, don't care about your life. Just that you "found god" and are a Christian. Give your money to the church and then go out there and convert as many people as possible. This is the "real side" of christians and shows thru. Too bad, because a certain park tries to play the fence on this issue, with a christian show, and other family events. Sorry, but I've got to put my foot down here. I didn't name the park (I could have), but they know who they are, and everyone knows too. South Park! Your right, it did show plainly in that Jesus vs Santa Claus match. That was so revealing. tom K0TAR |
Do you guys see great portents, meanings, signs and omens in the leavings of
a cup of tea too? chuckle Warmest regards, John "Tom Ring" wrote in message . .. NoGodForMe wrote: Fairy tales, Fairy tales. You know, I usually try to stay away from this crap because I know a certain park is slanted to the Christian side. But when this crap keeps happening, then you realize what the goal is. To convert as many as possible. They don't care if you have problems, don't care about your life. Just that you "found god" and are a Christian. Give your money to the church and then go out there and convert as many people as possible. This is the "real side" of christians and shows thru. Too bad, because a certain park tries to play the fence on this issue, with a christian show, and other family events. Sorry, but I've got to put my foot down here. I didn't name the park (I could have), but they know who they are, and everyone knows too. South Park! Your right, it did show plainly in that Jesus vs Santa Claus match. That was so revealing. tom K0TAR |
Ken and Sylvia Gould wrote:
CQ, CQ, CQ,......GOD!! What kind of antenna are you using:? Ever see a drawing of the gold-covered Ark? Those folded wings look a lot like a dipole. Maybe it should have been named the "Arc of the Covenant". :-) From the TLC web site: "The specifications also included the two gold cherubs that decorated the ends of the "mercy seat" atop the Ark, from which God would communicate with Moses. These manifestations were said to take the form of a glowing cloud, sparking between the outstretched wings of the cherubims." "But the Ark could be unpredictable. When the glowing cloud arced between the cherubims, Moses himself would often keep clear of the Tabernacle as implied in Exodus 40:35. Biblical accounts describe a Holy Ark that seems to strike down its caretakers with the same raw power unleashed against its caretakers' enemies. The sons of Aaron — Moses' own nephews — were struck dead by the fire of the Lord. when they bring the wrong offering before the Ark. In 2 Samuel 6:7, during a celebration in Jerusalem, the driver of the cart bearing the Ark reaches out to steady the golden box and falls dead at its touch." -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
It was/is certainly one device anyone in the electronic world would pay
an enormous fee to examine--even with my telflon gloves, rubber boots and tinfoil hat, would most likely strike me dead... frown Warmest regards, John "Cecil Moore" wrote in message ... Ken and Sylvia Gould wrote: CQ, CQ, CQ,......GOD!! What kind of antenna are you using:? Ever see a drawing of the gold-covered Ark? Those folded wings look a lot like a dipole. Maybe it should have been named the "Arc of the Covenant". :-) From the TLC web site: "The specifications also included the two gold cherubs that decorated the ends of the "mercy seat" atop the Ark, from which God would communicate with Moses. These manifestations were said to take the form of a glowing cloud, sparking between the outstretched wings of the cherubims." "But the Ark could be unpredictable. When the glowing cloud arced between the cherubims, Moses himself would often keep clear of the Tabernacle as implied in Exodus 40:35. Biblical accounts describe a Holy Ark that seems to strike down its caretakers with the same raw power unleashed against its caretakers' enemies. The sons of Aaron — Moses' own nephews — were struck dead by the fire of the Lord. when they bring the wrong offering before the Ark. In 2 Samuel 6:7, during a celebration in Jerusalem, the driver of the cart bearing the Ark reaches out to steady the golden box and falls dead at its touch." -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
Tony Elka wrote:
SNIPPED You do realize that Texas was part of Mexico before we stole it? Tony I thought we stole all 48 CONUS entities !! |
Well, we didn't steal 'em all, we bought Alaska--after the russians
stole it from the eskimos... and, Hawaii, do you think the islanders there gave it to us? Well, even if they did--the native peoples there are wanting it back and requesting us to leave... John "Ham op" wrote in message ... Tony Elka wrote: SNIPPED You do realize that Texas was part of Mexico before we stole it? Tony I thought we stole all 48 CONUS entities !! |
On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 14:15:51 -0500, "Ken and Sylvia Gould"
wrote: CQ, CQ, CQ,......GOD!! What kind of antenna are you using:? Ken, WA0SLU Maybe a J- (for Jesus) pole? Or, if you're Catholic, a tripole? |
On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 14:34:23 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote: Ken and Sylvia Gould wrote: CQ, CQ, CQ,......GOD!! What kind of antenna are you using:? Ever see a drawing of the gold-covered Ark? Those folded wings look a lot like a dipole. Maybe it should have been named the "Arc of the Covenant". :-) From the TLC web site: "The specifications also included the two gold cherubs that decorated the ends of the "mercy seat" atop the Ark, from which God would communicate with Moses. These manifestations were said to take the form of a glowing cloud, sparking between the outstretched wings of the cherubims." "But the Ark could be unpredictable. When the glowing cloud arced between the cherubims, Moses himself would often keep clear of the Tabernacle as implied in Exodus 40:35. Biblical accounts describe a Holy Ark that seems to strike down its caretakers with the same raw power unleashed against its caretakers' enemies. The sons of Aaron — Moses' own nephews — were struck dead by the fire of the Lord. when they bring the wrong offering before the Ark. In 2 Samuel 6:7, during a celebration in Jerusalem, the driver of the cart bearing the Ark reaches out to steady the golden box and falls dead at its touch." RF safety is Job One. |
Ed Price wrote:
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message ... John Smith wrote: ... how we slaughtered helpless indians with bows and arrows with our rifles... Custer might disagree with you on just how helpless those Indians were. :-) -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp IIRC, the 7th was using US issue single-shot, rolling block rifles. Studies of the distribution of spent cartridge cases indicates that the Indians had quite a few Winchester repeating rifles. Further, Custer had left his battery of Gatling guns far behind, as he felt they slowed his maneuver ability. I heard that Custer was at the bottom of his class at West Point, barely made it through to graduate, and was not very good at most of the skill sets needed to survive at being an Indian Fighting General. tom K0TAR |
Tom Ring wrote:
I heard that Custer was at the bottom of his class at West Point, barely made it through to graduate, and was not very good at most of the skill sets needed to survive at being an Indian Fighting General. If Custer had gone to Reno's aid, he probably would have lived to fight another day. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
Cecil Moore wrote:
Dave Althoff, Jr. wrote: Do you believe the Bible to be the "Word of God"? Or the "Words of God"? Actually, the word or words of "Elohim", i.e. Gods. Elohim is *PLURAL*. Yahweh was one of the Elohim. Yes, Elohim is a plural word. It doesn't necessarily signify that Yahweh is one of many gods. Some grammarians have referred to it as a "plural of majesty". -- html Matthew Weber br Curatorial Assistantbr Jean Gray Hargrove Music Librarybr University of California, Berkeleybrbr Behold, a greater than Solomon is here.br x-tab &nbs p;/x-tabThe Holy Bible (The New Testament): iThe Gospel According to St Matthew, /i12:42/html |
Where is the antenna issue(s) in this thread? I must have missed it...
Scott Matthew Weber wrote: Cecil Moore wrote: Dave Althoff, Jr. wrote: Do you believe the Bible to be the "Word of God"? Or the "Words of God"? Actually, the word or words of "Elohim", i.e. Gods. Elohim is *PLURAL*. Yahweh was one of the Elohim. Yes, Elohim is a plural word. It doesn't necessarily signify that Yahweh is one of many gods. Some grammarians have referred to it as a "plural of majesty". |
FOLDED HANDS ???
Scott wrote: Where is the antenna issue(s) in this thread? I must have missed it... Scott Matthew Weber wrote: Cecil Moore wrote: Dave Althoff, Jr. wrote: Do you believe the Bible to be the "Word of God"? Or the "Words of God"? Actually, the word or words of "Elohim", i.e. Gods. Elohim is *PLURAL*. Yahweh was one of the Elohim. Yes, Elohim is a plural word. It doesn't necessarily signify that Yahweh is one of many gods. Some grammarians have referred to it as a "plural of majesty". |
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 09:42:29 -0700, Matthew Weber
wrote: Cecil Moore wrote: Randy wrote: The Christian God is not Allah, and Jesus never prayerd to Allah. In Arabic, (and I was a professional government Arabic linguist and Middle East specialist) "Allah" means "THE God". The "AL" in Allah is the definite article in Arabic and in the Arabic script, the definite article gets physically linked to the word it defines. The word "god" (lower case) ( in Arabic is Lam, Lam, Tah Marbutah or LLH. Unfortunately I can't do Arabic script on my home computer. Also Arabic script does not have capital letters.) That word is transliterated LLH. (That "H" is really a glottal stop like the second "h" in "huh." There are several Arabic letters which can be transliterated "H" in Roman script. The Tah Marbutah, it looks like an "o" with two dots above it, has no real equivalent in Roman script, but is pronounced as a glottal stop. Like Hebrew, most vowels are not written out in Arabic except in linguistic texts and the Koran...they are simply diacrital marks. "LLH", without the definite article, was used to described dieties in Arabic long before Muhammad and the Koran came around in ca. 632 AD when the pre-Islamic Arabs were mainly animists. From an Islamic perspective, "Allah" is the same God as the God of Jews and the Christians. The Koran makes that quite clear. (The Koran also argues that the Jews didn't go far enough in their beliefs and the Christians got it wrong, but further argues that an Islamic believer is unlikely to convert them and they should be left alone and respected as "People of the Book.", the book in this case being the Pentateuch.) Whether you wish to accept that concept, of course, is a theological question. Most academic comparative theologists, even those at Christian and Jewish seminaries who are among the believing, do accept that premise (that the God is the same entity) even if they don't believe in the premise that God made the Koran his last word on the subject. The Islamic formula, as written in Arabic, states that there is no god (indefinite article) (llh) but THE God (Allah) with the definite article. The word has its roots in the proto-Semitic common to Arabic, Aramaic, and Hebrew. Again, from an Islamic perspective, Abraham, Jesus and Mohammad prayed to the same God, but certainly the vocabulary was different. Your theologic milage may vary, but here is at least is a linguistic and historical basis generally accepted in academic circles. Jon W3JT (Retired Gov't Linguist with Masters in Middle East Area Studies.) |
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 17:32:02 +0000, Scott
wrote: Where is the antenna issue(s) in this thread? I must have missed it... DXing God? Scott Matthew Weber wrote: Cecil Moore wrote: Dave Althoff, Jr. wrote: Do you believe the Bible to be the "Word of God"? Or the "Words of God"? Actually, the word or words of "Elohim", i.e. Gods. Elohim is *PLURAL*. Yahweh was one of the Elohim. Yes, Elohim is a plural word. It doesn't necessarily signify that Yahweh is one of many gods. Some grammarians have referred to it as a "plural of majesty". |
Matthew Weber wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote: Dave Althoff, Jr. wrote: Do you believe the Bible to be the "Word of God"? Or the "Words of God"? Actually, the word or words of "Elohim", i.e. Gods. Elohim is *PLURAL*. Yahweh was one of the Elohim. Yes, Elohim is a plural word. It doesn't necessarily signify that Yahweh is one of many gods. Some grammarians have referred to it as a "plural of majesty". See Genesis 6, god has a number of sons, when the bible says gods, plural, it means that literally. -- Xenu is around and about, mention Hubbard, Xenu pops out! No way for the clams to stamp Xenu out, Xenu is around and about! Cheerful Charlie |
Nice work, and a jewel of objectivity and accuracy, Jon! Don't confuse the
religious particularists with facts, though, it makes them grumpy.g (so-called Christian, Muslim or Jewish ...they deserve each other and appear embarassingly unworthy of their Prophets, peace be upon all of them) Apologies to the list, I'll restrain myself now. I could only stand so much ignorance and propaganda. ....hasan, N0AN "J. Teske" wrote in message ... On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 09:42:29 -0700, Matthew Weber wrote: Cecil Moore wrote: Randy wrote: The Christian God is not Allah, and Jesus never prayerd to Allah. In Arabic, (and I was a professional government Arabic linguist and Middle East specialist) "Allah" means "THE God". The "AL" in Allah is the definite article in Arabic and in the Arabic script, the definite article gets physically linked to the word it defines. The word "god" (lower case) ( in Arabic is Lam, Lam, Tah Marbutah or LLH. Unfortunately I can't do Arabic script on my home computer. Also Arabic script does not have capital letters.) That word is transliterated LLH. (That "H" is really a glottal stop like the second "h" in "huh." There are several Arabic letters which can be transliterated "H" in Roman script. The Tah Marbutah, it looks like an "o" with two dots above it, has no real equivalent in Roman script, but is pronounced as a glottal stop. Like Hebrew, most vowels are not written out in Arabic except in linguistic texts and the Koran...they are simply diacrital marks. "LLH", without the definite article, was used to described dieties in Arabic long before Muhammad and the Koran came around in ca. 632 AD when the pre-Islamic Arabs were mainly animists. From an Islamic perspective, "Allah" is the same God as the God of Jews and the Christians. The Koran makes that quite clear. (The Koran also argues that the Jews didn't go far enough in their beliefs and the Christians got it wrong, but further argues that an Islamic believer is unlikely to convert them and they should be left alone and respected as "People of the Book.", the book in this case being the Pentateuch.) Whether you wish to accept that concept, of course, is a theological question. Most academic comparative theologists, even those at Christian and Jewish seminaries who are among the believing, do accept that premise (that the God is the same entity) even if they don't believe in the premise that God made the Koran his last word on the subject. The Islamic formula, as written in Arabic, states that there is no god (indefinite article) (llh) but THE God (Allah) with the definite article. The word has its roots in the proto-Semitic common to Arabic, Aramaic, and Hebrew. Again, from an Islamic perspective, Abraham, Jesus and Mohammad prayed to the same God, but certainly the vocabulary was different. Your theologic milage may vary, but here is at least is a linguistic and historical basis generally accepted in academic circles. Jon W3JT (Retired Gov't Linguist with Masters in Middle East Area Studies.) |
J. Teske wrote:
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 09:42:29 -0700, Matthew Weber wrote: Cecil Moore wrote: Randy wrote: The Christian God is not Allah, and Jesus never prayerd to Allah. In Arabic, (and I was a professional government Arabic linguist and Middle East specialist) "Allah" means "THE God". The "AL" in Allah is the definite article in Arabic and in the Arabic script, the definite article gets physically linked to the word it defines. The word "god" (lower case) ( in Arabic is Lam, Lam, Tah Marbutah or LLH. Unfortunately I can't do Arabic script on my home computer. Also Arabic script does not have capital letters.) That word is transliterated LLH. (That "H" is really a glottal stop like the second "h" in "huh." There are several Arabic letters which can be transliterated "H" in Roman script. The Tah Marbutah, it looks like an "o" with two dots above it, has no real equivalent in Roman script, but is pronounced as a glottal stop. Like Hebrew, most vowels are not written out in Arabic except in linguistic texts and the Koran...they are simply diacrital marks. "LLH", without the definite article, was used to described dieties in Arabic long before Muhammad and the Koran came around in ca. 632 AD when the pre-Islamic Arabs were mainly animists. From an Islamic perspective, "Allah" is the same God as the God of Jews and the Christians. The Koran makes that quite clear. (The Koran also argues that the Jews didn't go far enough in their beliefs and the Christians got it wrong, but further argues that an Islamic believer is unlikely to convert them and they should be left alone and respected as "People of the Book.", the book in this case being the Pentateuch.) Whether you wish to accept that concept, of course, is a theological question. Most academic comparative theologists, even those at Christian and Jewish seminaries who are among the believing, do accept that premise (that the God is the same entity) even if they don't believe in the premise that God made the Koran his last word on the subject. The Islamic formula, as written in Arabic, states that there is no god (indefinite article) (llh) but THE God (Allah) with the definite article. The word has its roots in the proto-Semitic common to Arabic, Aramaic, and Hebrew. Again, from an Islamic perspective, Abraham, Jesus and Mohammad prayed to the same God, but certainly the vocabulary was different. Your theologic milage may vary, but here is at least is a linguistic and historical basis generally accepted in academic circles. All very good, But can God make a buritto so hot that s/he can't eat it? ;^) - Mike - |
WCB wrote:
SNIPPED See Genesis 6, god has a number of sons, when the bible says gods, plural, it means that literally. We have many, many gods: TV, Ham Radio, booze, drugs, women [or men], jobs, pleasures, sex, money, power, fame, sleep, boats, second homes, retirement accounts, etc. We pursue these with most of our energy. None of these satisfy the deep inner needs of humanity. When one recognizes this unsatisfied need then one seeks the GOD! |
WCB wrote:
Matthew Weber wrote: Cecil Moore wrote: Dave Althoff, Jr. wrote: Do you believe the Bible to be the "Word of God"? Or the "Words of God"? Actually, the word or words of "Elohim", i.e. Gods. Elohim is *PLURAL*. Yahweh was one of the Elohim. Yes, Elohim is a plural word. It doesn't necessarily signify that Yahweh is one of many gods. Some grammarians have referred to it as a "plural of majesty". See Genesis 6, god has a number of sons, when the bible says gods, plural, it means that literally. How do you figure? That isn't in line with anything found elsewhere in the Bible, or any respectable hermeneutic. Does the Queen of England mean to imply that there is more than one of her when she uses the "royal We"? -- html Matthew Weber br Curatorial Assistantbr Jean Gray Hargrove Music Librarybr University of California, Berkeleybrbr Some seeds fell by the way side.br x-tab &nbs p;/x-tabThe Holy Bible (The New Testament): iThe Gospel According to St Matthew, /i13:4/html |
Cecil Moore wrote:
Tony Elka wrote: You do realize that Texas was part of Mexico before we stole it? Texas was actually stolen four or five times and one time Mexico was the thief when they stole Texas from Spain. Texas was originally stolen by the Europeans from the Indians who thought owning land was a ridiculous concept. And look where that attitude got them! -- html Matthew Weber br Curatorial Assistantbr Jean Gray Hargrove Music Librarybr University of California, Berkeleybrbr Some seeds fell by the way side.br x-tab &nbs p;/x-tabThe Holy Bible (The New Testament): iThe Gospel According to St Matthew, /i13:4/html |
Matthew Weber wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote: Tony Elka wrote: You do realize that Texas was part of Mexico before we stole it? Texas was actually stolen four or five times and one time Mexico was the thief when they stole Texas from Spain. Texas was originally stolen by the Europeans from the Indians who thought owning land was a ridiculous concept. And look where that attitude got them! I've always been puzzled why people thought that how things end up was a surprise. If you took someone who somehow was not aware of the history and said to them: You've got two societies of people on the same land: One group does not believe in private property ownership, and the other one does - which one do you think over time will end up taking posession of and claiming - how else can you put it? - *ownership* of that land? I'm not saying it's right, or that how it was done was right, but I often question the honesty and intelligence of people that act appalled at how it ended up. I mean - it should be a required question on any intelligence test, and anyone who anwered that the group that didn't believe in private property ownership would end up displacing the group that did should be put in the moron category regardless of how they answered any other questions. Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') |
Matthew Weber wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote: Tony Elka wrote: You do realize that Texas was part of Mexico before we stole it? Texas was actually stolen four or five times and one time Mexico was the thief when they stole Texas from Spain. Texas was originally stolen by the Europeans from the Indians who thought owning land was a ridiculous concept. And look where that attitude got them! Yep!! They rob the white man today ... Foxwoods, Mohegan Sun, etc. For the uninitiated, Foxwoods et al are gambling casinos on indian reservations. |
Matthew Weber wrote:
WCB wrote: Matthew Weber wrote: Cecil Moore wrote: Dave Althoff, Jr. wrote: Do you believe the Bible to be the "Word of God"? Or the "Words of God"? Actually, the word or words of "Elohim", i.e. Gods. Elohim is *PLURAL*. Yahweh was one of the Elohim. Yes, Elohim is a plural word. It doesn't necessarily signify that Yahweh is one of many gods. Some grammarians have referred to it as a "plural of majesty". See Genesis 6, god has a number of sons, when the bible says gods, plural, it means that literally. How do you figure? That isn't in line with anything found elsewhere in the Bible, or any respectable hermeneutic. Read Genesis 6. We get only heavily edited, redacted bits and pieces of old myths. Much has been thrown out, edited out, gone forever. We just a few bits of the old myth peeking out through cracks in the old testament. Where did they come from? What was the deal with them? Well that has been edited out and we wil never know, except the fossil language. Behold the man has become one of us to know good and evil... Why the magic fruit trees? There is a lot that was taken out of the original myths. -- Xenu is around and about, mention Hubbard, Xenu pops out! No way for the clams to stamp Xenu out, Xenu is around and about! Cheerful Charlie |
On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 19:14:11 -0400, Ham op wrote:
Matthew Weber wrote: Cecil Moore wrote: Tony Elka wrote: You do realize that Texas was part of Mexico before we stole it? Texas was actually stolen four or five times and one time Mexico was the thief when they stole Texas from Spain. Texas was originally stolen by the Europeans from the Indians who thought owning land was a ridiculous concept. And look where that attitude got them! Yep!! They rob the white man today ... Foxwoods, Mohegan Sun, etc. For the uninitiated, Foxwoods et al are gambling casinos on indian reservations. What goes around .... Tough when the second shoe fits too tight, huh? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:38 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com