Omegaman 3.0 Posted July 19, 2016 Group: Graduated to Heaven Followers: 57 Topic Count: 1,546 Topics Per Day: 0.21 Content Count: 10,320 Content Per Day: 1.41 Reputation: 12,323 Days Won: 9 Joined: 04/15/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/05/1951 Share Posted July 19, 2016 2 hours ago, other one said: Take the "S" word.... that came as a shipping acronym..... This bit of fiction has been traced, in a different form, to a Usenet posting from 1999. Source: http://www.etymonline.com/baloney.php Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just a Mirror Posted July 19, 2016 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 21 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 237 Content Per Day: 0.08 Reputation: 119 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/13/2016 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/27/1974 Share Posted July 19, 2016 5 minutes ago, Omegaman 3.0 said: I doubt there is much difference. In my OPINION, it is the same think. We come up with what I call Christian swear words. "God damn it", we do not deem polite, were worry that is is taking the Lord's name in vain. So we create a loophole, as if that changes our heart, and then we morph phrases into "Gosh darn it", "goll dang it", "dag nab it", etc. Seems to me it is just a way for 'polite' people to legitimize swearing! We even have ways to say the F word when we want to, or we pretend that inserting a "#" in place of a vowel, or changing on letter (like f%#$) is okay. Well, it isn't. It is either alright to say the real word, and stop being silly, or it is better to find other ways to express ourselves with out PC version of expletives, don't you think? Ephesians says, "Do not let an unwholesome word come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for the building up of others." This is soo hard for me......Combat Infantry is the wrong job if you want to speak kindly to people, lol, but I'm aware of my splinters and work hard every moment to run everything through the filter of Ruach ha-Kodesh, quite a war we have going on inside. God bless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just a Mirror Posted July 20, 2016 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 21 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 237 Content Per Day: 0.08 Reputation: 119 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/13/2016 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/27/1974 Share Posted July 20, 2016 9 minutes ago, Yowm said: JW's should seriously consider if they are taking God's name in vain when they deny that Jesus is Jehovah. Closer to blasphemy, which is really bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
other one Posted July 20, 2016 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 29 Topic Count: 598 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 56,167 Content Per Day: 7.56 Reputation: 27,893 Days Won: 271 Joined: 12/29/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted July 20, 2016 3 hours ago, Omegaman 3.0 said: This bit of fiction has been traced, in a different form, to a Usenet posting from 1999. Source: http://www.etymonline.com/baloney.php I'm 69 years old and I have heard that my whole life. Long before 1999. Go figure... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omegaman 3.0 Posted July 20, 2016 Group: Graduated to Heaven Followers: 57 Topic Count: 1,546 Topics Per Day: 0.21 Content Count: 10,320 Content Per Day: 1.41 Reputation: 12,323 Days Won: 9 Joined: 04/15/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/05/1951 Share Posted July 20, 2016 other one said: I'm 69 years old and I have heard that my whole life. Long before 1999. Go figure... Yes, well, you could be right. Maybe you have heard it it your whole life. I heard lots of things my whole life also. Thing is, after 4 etymology sites failed to turn up anything of the sort, I gave up looking. In fact, the one that did make reference to the idea, was the one I cited, and it cited it as untrue. The rest had other source info, none of them having anything to do with shipping of acronyms. No disrespect intended, but I think I will stick with the people who make world origins their business, rather than what "some one heard" for now. If you want to continue to tell people that it has some other origin, that is your business. I heard on the internet, right here in this post, that that word actually came from an an inter-steller alien race who interbred with the Nephillim, also way before 1999, so also go figure! Addendum: For those interested in an article on false etymologies, wikipedia has an article entitled: List of common false etymologies of English words but be forewarned, interesting is it might be, there are some words we would never allow here. Also, for what it is worth, just did a Google search for the term "Ship High In Transit", and to my utter amazment, no one ever posted the origin of that term prior to 1999, amazing that no one who knew of it's origin, ever thought to mention it before that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ezra Posted July 20, 2016 Group: Royal Member Followers: 16 Topic Count: 134 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 8,142 Content Per Day: 2.35 Reputation: 6,612 Days Won: 20 Joined: 11/02/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted July 20, 2016 22 hours ago, ~esther~ said: Do Jehovah's Witnesses consider it to be taking the Lord's Name in vain when specifically using the expression "OMG"? Since JWs reject many fundamental Bible doctrines and distort the truth, they cannot be regarded as genuine Christians (although many are probably good, moral, and upstanding citizens). So if one of them says OMG, that is par for the course. If this person is open, you could get down to sharing Scriptures beginning with the truth about Jesus. Only those who are saved can see that OMG is of the world and does take the name of God in vain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts