John Smith wrote:
bb:

Pray tell, you mean the "newer christians" can't read--so remain
ignorant to the passages which speak of wine and caution of consuming
too much? But, do encourage one to partake in a moderate fashion?

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?

The "New Christians" also tore out the Sermon on the Mount pages.

Yanno, we used to have mental heath facilities where there were able to
help these people...

What was once insane is now required.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike:

I think "they" attempt to convince us that we are the minority--however,
I think only a small percentage of the population has somehow gained
political and authority (police, etc.) control--how this has been done
is nothing short of amazing...

And, while I think those who would attack or injure these people are as
sick, or even sicker than the ones doing this...

A simple remark in public, such as, "I think gays suffer a form of
mental illness which a kind society would seek to offer help with.",
will provoke quite a large number of people into wishing they could kill
you!!!

I stand in awe at the forces able to produce this phenomenon...

Warmest regards,
John
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
John Smith wrote:
bb:

Pray tell, you mean the "newer christians" can't read--so remain
ignorant to the passages which speak of wine and caution of consuming
too much? But, do encourage one to partake in a moderate fashion?

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?

The "New Christians" also tore out the Sermon on the Mount pages.

Yanno, we used to have mental heath facilities where there were able
to help these people...

What was once insane is now required.

- Mike KB3EIA -

wrote:
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.

Weird, eh? The OT has more contradictory stuff in it than just about
anything I've ever read.



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.

Kreepy and Kinky is all I can say on the matter. Yuck!


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?

I believe that the New Testament would be a good starting place. A lot
less of the thou shalts and shalt nots.

Except for the Sermon on the Mount, which is a number of direct
commands, most of which are routinely ignored by those who consider
themselves the most righteous!

- Mike KB3EIA -

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?

Michael:

It is weird, just to think it is the only book (well, there are a couple
of more, most mention a "God") which stands between a lot more crime and
immense degradation of society and not...

.... as even I can see if there is no creator to answer to--then I am
free to murder anyone possessing great wealth and property and take it
for myself...

.... of course I still wouldn't do that--but just because I want to "be a
nice guy." And, having studied human nature, I am afraid how long that
alone could stop me... perhaps till there was ten million dollars on the
table and I thought I could get away with it? evil-grin

I think drug dealers, extortionists, bank robbers, serial killers,
rapists, child molesters, etc. may have already figured this out
though... too bad really... looking back, the world did seem a quite a
bit safer when they were still living in "ignorance"...

Warmest regards,
John

"Michael Coslo" wrote in message
...


wrote:
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.

Weird, eh? The OT has more contradictory stuff in it than just about
anything I've ever read.



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.

Kreepy and Kinky is all I can say on the matter. Yuck!


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?

I believe that the New Testament would be a good starting place. A lot
less of the thou shalts and shalt nots.

Except for the Sermon on the Mount, which is a number of direct
commands, most of which are routinely ignored by those who consider
themselves the most righteous!

- Mike KB3EIA -

John Smith wrote:
Then your argument is that it is totally logical to claim to follow a
"religion" (such as the ARRL)

ARRL is not a religion. That claim is incorrect.

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?

Has nothing to do with me.

The claim was made about certain things being labeled abominations
by the Bible.

I point out that there are all sorts of things labeled abominations
by that same Bible, yet people who call themselves Christians
regularly do precisely those things (like eating pork and other
foods labeled unclean).

IOW, many Christians pick and choose which "Old Testament" abominations
to avoid, but then criticize others for not avoiding the same ones.

We also have Christians who claim the Bible to be literally true, and
insist that science agree with their literal interpretation. Yet they
don't seem to have read the very Book they want taken literally, for
it is full of contradictions *if taken literally*.

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...

Those rules are created by humans, and can be changed by humans.

--

Personally I prefer the Book of Bokonon.

--

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?

N2EY wrote:
"ARRL is not a religion. That claim is incorrect."

.... really, don't they mention "traditions" and manners of ethical and
moral behaviors an amateur should conduct themselves by?

If so, they have many of the traits of a religion... and many "ARRL
zealots" look to be just as dangerous as some "religious zealots"...
has scarred off a bunch of licenses from joining...

Warmest regards,
John
wrote in message
oups.com...
John Smith wrote:
Then your argument is that it is totally logical to claim to follow a
"religion" (such as the ARRL)

ARRL is not a religion. That claim is incorrect.

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?

Has nothing to do with me.

The claim was made about certain things being labeled abominations
by the Bible.

I point out that there are all sorts of things labeled abominations
by that same Bible, yet people who call themselves Christians
regularly do precisely those things (like eating pork and other
foods labeled unclean).

IOW, many Christians pick and choose which "Old Testament"
abominations
to avoid, but then criticize others for not avoiding the same ones.

We also have Christians who claim the Bible to be literally true, and
insist that science agree with their literal interpretation. Yet they
don't seem to have read the very Book they want taken literally, for
it is full of contradictions *if taken literally*.

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...

Those rules are created by humans, and can be changed by humans.

--

Personally I prefer the Book of Bokonon.

--

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?

John Smith wrote:
N2EY wrote:
"ARRL is not a religion. That claim is incorrect."

... really, don't they mention "traditions" and manners of
ethical and
moral behaviors an amateur should conduct themselves by?

There's more to a religion than that.

If you consider any organization that mentions traditions and
ethical/moral behaviors that people should conduct themselves
by, then you consider all of the following to be "religions":

- Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts and similar organizations
- US Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard
- AMA, ANA, and similar organizations
- IEEE and similar organizations
- No-Code International and similar organizations


And many others.

If so, they have many of the traits of a religion...

So do all of the organizations listed above.

and many "ARRL
zealots" look to be just as dangerous as some "religious
zealots"...

That claim is incorrect.

has scarred off a bunch of licenses from joining...

IMHO, if someone is sacred off by the current license
requirements, they really aren't interested.

wrote in message
oups.com...
John Smith wrote:
Then your argument is that it is totally logical to claim to follow a
"religion" (such as the ARRL)

ARRL is not a religion. That claim is incorrect.

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?

Has nothing to do with me.

The claim was made about certain things being labeled abominations
by the Bible.

I point out that there are all sorts of things labeled abominations
by that same Bible, yet people who call themselves Christians
regularly do precisely those things (like eating pork and other
foods labeled unclean).

IOW, many Christians pick and choose which "Old Testament"
abominations
to avoid, but then criticize others for not avoiding the same ones.

We also have Christians who claim the Bible to be literally true, and
insist that science agree with their literal interpretation. Yet they
don't seem to have read the very Book they want taken literally, for
it is full of contradictions *if taken literally*.

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...

Those rules are created by humans, and can be changed by humans.

--

Personally I prefer the Book of Bokonon.

--

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?

N2Ey:

I stand corrected, ARRL is NOT a valid religion...

Nope, more of a cult actually--"Cult of the ARRL." grin

John

wrote in message
oups.com...
John Smith wrote:
N2EY wrote:
"ARRL is not a religion. That claim is incorrect."

... really, don't they mention "traditions" and manners of
ethical and
moral behaviors an amateur should conduct themselves by?

There's more to a religion than that.

If you consider any organization that mentions traditions and
ethical/moral behaviors that people should conduct themselves
by, then you consider all of the following to be "religions":

- Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts and similar organizations
- US Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard
- AMA, ANA, and similar organizations
- IEEE and similar organizations
- No-Code International and similar organizations


And many others.

If so, they have many of the traits of a religion...

So do all of the organizations listed above.

and many "ARRL
zealots" look to be just as dangerous as some "religious
zealots"...

That claim is incorrect.

has scarred off a bunch of licenses from joining...

IMHO, if someone is sacred off by the current license
requirements, they really aren't interested.

wrote in message
oups.com...
John Smith wrote:
Then your argument is that it is totally logical to claim to
follow a
"religion" (such as the ARRL)

ARRL is not a religion. That claim is incorrect.

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?

Has nothing to do with me.

The claim was made about certain things being labeled abominations
by the Bible.

I point out that there are all sorts of things labeled abominations
by that same Bible, yet people who call themselves Christians
regularly do precisely those things (like eating pork and other
foods labeled unclean).

IOW, many Christians pick and choose which "Old Testament"
abominations
to avoid, but then criticize others for not avoiding the same ones.

We also have Christians who claim the Bible to be literally true,
and
insist that science agree with their literal interpretation. Yet
they
don't seem to have read the very Book they want taken literally,
for
it is full of contradictions *if taken literally*.

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...

Those rules are created by humans, and can be changed by humans.

--

Personally I prefer the Book of Bokonon.

--

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?

John Smith wrote:
N2Ey:

I stand corrected, ARRL is NOT a valid religion...

Nope, more of a cult actually--"Cult of the ARRL." grin

Then the following are all cults, too:

- Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts and similar organizations
- US Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard
- AMA, ANA, and similar organizations
- IEEE and similar organizations
- No-Code International and similar organizations

And many others.