posted on May 25, 2001 08:08:58 AM new
Borillar- No
I only asked that, I guess, for the first time, (before elections) from what I heard on the news, he 'endorsed' any Presedential Candidate, and that was Bush.
Though I do not believe he is political in any way, and because out of all the 'big name?' Christian leaders, I do like Billy Graham.
IMO, though he is no Mother Theresa, he is a great minister, leader, writer whatever for any denomination Christian, so it was off topic..... just seeing if you saw my question, and you did
posted on May 25, 2001 03:04:18 PM new
I notice you! I notice you! And I notice you!
I am the Patron Saint of Noticing everybody!
Speaking fo catholics, it is usually the province of ignorant fundamentalists to pursue their evil ways into politics and wanting us to be a tyranny, a theocracy, with THEM incharge, of course!
I have heard a few complaints about Billy too. Seems that he has an evangelical streak and a viewpoint to match that turns some people off. However, I haven't heard that he was really trying to overthrow our democratic government as the fundies are trying to. I guess I'll do what conservative republican christian fundamentalists don't and that's read his book!
posted on May 25, 2001 09:17:51 PM new
NearTheSea,
I like Billy Graham too. I read his biography not too long ago. On another board, people were just talking about his site and how nice it is that he offers free books and sells nothing. Though he offers Biblical information about end of times, he is not a "date setter". I listened to him talk about his life and inparticular his relationships with presidents. Very interesting.
That's here:
http://www.broadcast.com/audiobooks/Non_Fiction/ (Search for "Billy Graham". An Interview With Billy Graham.)
Funny that you mentioned Mother Teresa too. LOL, I read that one a month ago. Also a great book.
T.
~oops, I stuttered.
[ edited by jt on May 25, 2001 09:22 PM ]
posted on May 25, 2001 10:18:35 PM newI've always thought Billy Graham a good person, writer, and minister.
I think I'd have to give my top rating to C. S. Lewis. One of my old flames had every book he wrote, the ones for children and adults. What little I read left me with the highest respect for the man. I guess I'd have to classify myself as an agnostic, but C.S. Lewis makes some powerful arguments.
posted on May 26, 2001 12:10:25 AM new
What about Charles Sheldon who wrote "In His Steps"? I know little about his personal life. I do know that he wrote the book chapter by chapter to read aloud to his church. He never earned one penny from it and now it's the entire basis for the "WWJD?" movement. I have read both "In His Steps" (original version) and "What Would Jesus Do?" (kids version). Do you all know anything about him personally?
I could list several great books that you all might be interested in. Ask if you need inspiration. I love to share what I read.
T.
UARU, have you ever heard of Chuck Missler?
You can find his audio's here in the library:
http://firefighters.org/index.htm
Scroll down to "topical messages" after you pull him up by name. Don't know if you will like it but he makes an impressive argument too. What I have heard could be labeled "scientific evidence for the existance of God" if I had to give it a synopis name. I haven't heard all his stuff. It's not exactly "light listening". I have to really pay attention stay with him. Dhh.. It's good in the car when there isn't anything else to do.
One tape begins with his discussing "the level of heresy for this session". Pretty funny. Art Bell listener up there should be ok with it.
posted on May 26, 2001 08:50:36 AM new
and Bill Gates
Helen
OT (LOL!) but I never went to Church (Catholic) after leaving parochial school. When I had my girls, my father offered to pay their tutition to parochial school. I refused, because I remembered my years there.
Now that I'm old I now wish I would have.
They didn't turn out bad, they are both doing good. And it wasn't for the religious teaching either. Just compared to the public schools they attended, they *may* have been more inclined to go on to a 4 yr or more college...... my oldest is the one that never gave up the idea of being a dr. By the time she was done with high school, she ended up switching to Veternary School, which she is in now, with a student loan on part of it. They used to say when you graduate from parochial school, you graduate with the equivalent of 1 year of college, all the requirements they have to graduate are higher than public school (we had to take Latin for at least one year, these days? I have no idea if thats a requirement)
But you never know, and I'll never know, they could have done worse going to private school, no telling.
Hey! I had the crazy ideas first year of high school that I wanted to be a nun! YIKES! LOL! but I think that notion lasted about 1 month! LOL!
posted on May 26, 2001 08:54:42 AM new
uaru-I'm sure they were. I'll have to run a search on that. I only remember what I read in some mag back when they did that, it was in Time, or one of those, but I'm sure its on the internet somewhere.
posted on May 26, 2001 12:23:43 PM new
NearTheSea,
The value of Catholic and private vesus public education is sometimes not very clear. I wish that I had learned some Latin...so that I could spell.
I learned a little French and a little Spanish; just enough to get the two mixed up. And after I left school, I never had any occasion to use either language except maybe at a restaurant.
Speaking of Vets, I came home from the Vets the other day with a bill
that you would not believe. Someday, your daughter will be wealthy!!!
Sorry about getting off topic, but I wanted to answer your note.
Have a happy holiday! It's raining for three days here!
posted on May 26, 2001 02:02:19 PM new
America was a theocracy when the Puritans arrived and that lasted too long. In certain segments of our population we still have Theocratical "mumbo jumbo." Like certain people being shunned or excomunicated from their church for only wanting to do good.
All I have to say is God help us from ourselves and leaders.
what was lame IMO, that they required Latin, they were still doing a lot of the Mass in Latin, but then they took Latin out of the Mass, and its all English (well Spanish in some) so I guess, unless your going to seminary or be a dr., Latin was useless!
Hey I took Spanish.... I forgot most except how to count to 10 in it LOL!!!!!
uh as for Latin, forget it, LOL! I'll be coming up on my ack! 30th H.S. Reunion
posted on May 26, 2001 03:14:41 PM new
Hi HJW,
Yep!!!! Good to see you.
Haven't been here in quite awhile but couldn't leave this one alone. It's too important.
Calamity
edited for a duh!
[ edited by calamity49 on May 26, 2001 03:16 PM ]
posted on June 6, 2001 01:14:36 AM new
A search on Google:
koran - 175,000
quran - 264,000
If someone of the faith corrected you does that make their spelling correct? Ever seen a Christian misspell "Bible".
To be technical, the main reason the spelling Qu'ran is accepted is because there is a different book called the "koran" that was written by a man that called himself The Noble Drew Ali. This book (more like a long pamphlet) has little to do with the Holy Qu'ran, but was written as a text in a black muslim seperatist movement that call themselves the Moabites, or more properly referred to as The Moorish Science Temple Of America. They basically have a following in our prison system today, and little influence out here in the real world, but there is a DISTINCT difference in the 2 books.
Just trying to be helpful, of course.
BTW, initially both spellings were correct, but in an effort to distance themselves from the black separatists, most translators insist on using the spelling Qu'ran today.
Edited for my PS
[ edited by jlpiece on Jun 6, 2001 01:17 AM ]
posted on June 6, 2001 01:19:33 AM new
That's grossly biased and deceiving, jlpiece. Quran will foster more hits because it's also a name for a food made of peppers and elephant hide.
posted on June 6, 2001 04:18:27 PM new
I find a lot more hits with Qurom than Quram, possibly because the "a" instead of "o" gives the incorrect pronuciation?
posted on June 6, 2001 04:26:26 PM new
Transliteration is inexact, although there are rules. If you read literature that's more then, say, 60 years you'll see that Muhammad (Mohammad?) is often spelled Mahomet. Obviously the only correct spelling is the one in Arabic and anything in English is just an approximation. As far as transliteration rules, I'm guessing that in Arabic there are two letters with the "k" sound and "q" is used when the second of the two letters appears. In Hebrew (a language that is in the same language family as Arabic) there is the letter "kaf" and "kuf", both making the same sound. When a "kaf" is used the transliteration is supposed to use a "k" since they occupy the approximate place in the alphabet and when a "kuf" is used a "q" will be used, since it is in the same place in the alphabet.
posted on June 6, 2001 11:36:27 PM new
And it is also gramatically incorrect. Not that I would know, but I do read Arabic, and speak it (rather unfluently). I also, but to a lesser degree, can read Ancient Hebrew and Aramaic with some help from my books, but for the actual reason for the differences, please see my post above.
By the way borillar what is a qurom? And a quram? Just curious, cause I couldn't figure out what you were referring to.
I now wish I would have.