Robert L. Bass wrote:


You can't prove faith. Faith is its own
proof. It is "the substance of things hoped for; the evidence of things not
seen."

Bingo. The problem is with the multitudes who feel like they have to
prove it to everyone else.

Bingo. The problem is with the multitudes who
feel like they have to prove it to everyone else.

I can't speak for anyone else. I don't try to prove my faith. I do
occasionally state what I believe though.

Bingo. The problem is with the multitudes who
feel like they have to prove it to everyone else.

I can't speak for anyone else. I don't try to prove my faith. I do
occasionally state what I believe though.

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message

In alt.home-theater.misc normanstrong
wrote:

"badger" cferriola@1remove numbers2triad.rr.com wrote in message
...
Hey guys, do you like the Denon or the Yamaha?
Clay

I like both of them. My advice would be the expand the list to
include some cheaper, more capable receivers that also have a good
reputation, such as Panasonic. Then peruse the instruction manuals
which are usually posted on the manufacturer's web site. This will
tell you what features the receiver has and what's missing (possibly
a phono stage.) Then make your decision.

Remember, the manufacturer is only responsible for what it says on
the spec sheet. The difference between 75W and 80W is 5W--not
nothing.

But it may not be 5W either. ;

See this helpful spreadsheet, which compared mfrs spec with bench
performance

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Holl...1/ratevsac.htm


An exercise in splitting irrelevant hairs.

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message

In alt.home-theater.misc normanstrong
wrote:

"badger" cferriola@1remove numbers2triad.rr.com wrote in message
...
Hey guys, do you like the Denon or the Yamaha?
Clay

I like both of them. My advice would be the expand the list to
include some cheaper, more capable receivers that also have a good
reputation, such as Panasonic. Then peruse the instruction manuals
which are usually posted on the manufacturer's web site. This will
tell you what features the receiver has and what's missing (possibly
a phono stage.) Then make your decision.

Remember, the manufacturer is only responsible for what it says on
the spec sheet. The difference between 75W and 80W is 5W--not
nothing.

But it may not be 5W either. ;

See this helpful spreadsheet, which compared mfrs spec with bench
performance

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Holl...1/ratevsac.htm


An exercise in splitting irrelevant hairs.

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message

In alt.home-theater.misc Arny Krueger wrote:

"Andrew M." wrote in message
...

Maybe you didn't say it but someone did.

Speaks to your vague connection with reality, Andrew.


Any reference to Jesus is a
reference to that work of fiction called the bible...Go tout it
somewhere else.

Shows your bigotry and hysterical state of mind, Andrew. People
mention various written works of opinion, fact, theory, poetry,
stories, prognostication, you name it; all the time and as a rule
nobody goes ballistic.

OTOH if someone should be so brave as to mention the Bible in
public, it's not uncommon for some pathetic hysterical
Christian-hating bigot to fly off the handle and say all sorts of
crazy things. I suggest Andrew that you recognize that at the very
least the Bible is just another written work of opinion, fact,
theory, poetry, stories, prognostication, you name it, and get on
with the rest of your life.

It is, however a written work which has has, from some poitns of view,
a vastly inordinate amount of
influence over many people's lives, including those who would rather
not be influenced by it at all. And this has gone on for centuries.

Blame the Book for how people perceive it.

Hence the rancor.

Hence the attempt to ban the Book.

Personally I prefer Moby Dick to the Bible.

Your privilege.

I'd like to see more Melville refs and less references to Bibles and
Jesus and such, generally.

You could be less transparent about wanting to impose your preferences on
me.

WHAT WOULD ISHMAEL DO?

Which Ishmael?

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message

In alt.home-theater.misc Arny Krueger wrote:

"Andrew M." wrote in message
...

Maybe you didn't say it but someone did.

Speaks to your vague connection with reality, Andrew.


Any reference to Jesus is a
reference to that work of fiction called the bible...Go tout it
somewhere else.

Shows your bigotry and hysterical state of mind, Andrew. People
mention various written works of opinion, fact, theory, poetry,
stories, prognostication, you name it; all the time and as a rule
nobody goes ballistic.

OTOH if someone should be so brave as to mention the Bible in
public, it's not uncommon for some pathetic hysterical
Christian-hating bigot to fly off the handle and say all sorts of
crazy things. I suggest Andrew that you recognize that at the very
least the Bible is just another written work of opinion, fact,
theory, poetry, stories, prognostication, you name it, and get on
with the rest of your life.

It is, however a written work which has has, from some poitns of view,
a vastly inordinate amount of
influence over many people's lives, including those who would rather
not be influenced by it at all. And this has gone on for centuries.

Blame the Book for how people perceive it.

Hence the rancor.

Hence the attempt to ban the Book.

Personally I prefer Moby Dick to the Bible.

Your privilege.

I'd like to see more Melville refs and less references to Bibles and
Jesus and such, generally.

You could be less transparent about wanting to impose your preferences on
me.

WHAT WOULD ISHMAEL DO?

Which Ishmael?

"George M. Middius" wrote in message


I realize that millions of nitwits want to be brainwashed and have
other people tell them what to do.

A situation that is so comment that it is irrelevant to any reasonable
discussion of the Bible.

Your "christian" beliefs are the
cause of most of this country's social problems,

Prove it.

and they cost us all
billions of bucks every year in misspent tax dollars.

Prove it.

Maybe you're right though. Crucifying the worst of your lot seems
better than a quiet drowning.

Middius stupidly wants to crucify the hand that feeds him.

"George M. Middius" wrote in message


I realize that millions of nitwits want to be brainwashed and have
other people tell them what to do.

A situation that is so comment that it is irrelevant to any reasonable
discussion of the Bible.

Your "christian" beliefs are the
cause of most of this country's social problems,

Prove it.

and they cost us all
billions of bucks every year in misspent tax dollars.

Prove it.

Maybe you're right though. Crucifying the worst of your lot seems
better than a quiet drowning.

Middius stupidly wants to crucify the hand that feeds him.

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 13:57:38 -0400, "Robert L. Bass"

The right wing Christians would screem for him to be pulled off of the
shelves because he was gay.

Since so many non-Christians would do the identical same thing, the
inclusion of the word "Christian" is obviously gratuitous. It appearance
speaks to Weil's desire to deceive others, and demonize a word that scares
him to death.

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 13:57:38 -0400, "Robert L. Bass"

The right wing Christians would screem for him to be pulled off of the
shelves because he was gay.

Since so many non-Christians would do the identical same thing, the
inclusion of the word "Christian" is obviously gratuitous. It appearance
speaks to Weil's desire to deceive others, and demonize a word that scares
him to death.

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...



My remarks in this thread were entirely non-Christian.


All of your remarks are entierly non-Christian.

The truth of that statement would depend on the meaning of the word
"entierly". It appears in none of my dictionaries.

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...



My remarks in this thread were entirely non-Christian.


All of your remarks are entierly non-Christian.

The truth of that statement would depend on the meaning of the word
"entierly". It appears in none of my dictionaries.

"Stephen Worth" wrote in message

In article , Arny Krueger
wrote:

But the idea that Christian ideas would be offensive speaks to the
narrow-mindedness and intolerance we find with certain hysterical
rabid anti-Christian people.

It all goes back to the old saying, "Choose your enemies carefully,
because they are who you will end up most resembling."

Many old sayings are really pretty meaningless. This appears to be one of
them.

"Stephen Worth" wrote in message

In article , Arny Krueger
wrote:

But the idea that Christian ideas would be offensive speaks to the
narrow-mindedness and intolerance we find with certain hysterical
rabid anti-Christian people.

It all goes back to the old saying, "Choose your enemies carefully,
because they are who you will end up most resembling."

Many old sayings are really pretty meaningless. This appears to be one of
them.

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 00:38:57 -0400, "Robert L. Bass"
wrote:

There are NO absolute truths.

I used to think that was true, too. Then one day I met Someone who changed
my point of view.

You are assuming that your point of view is an absolute truth by that
statement.

I would beg to differ.

Grant Kinsley MD

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 00:38:57 -0400, "Robert L. Bass"
wrote:

There are NO absolute truths.

I used to think that was true, too. Then one day I met Someone who changed
my point of view.

You are assuming that your point of view is an absolute truth by that
statement.

I would beg to differ.

Grant Kinsley MD

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 20:01:04 -0400, "Robert L. Bass"
wrote:

It would be fair if you weren't acting as Arnold's
advocate. Since you are, you're acting on very
sketchy information. You need to do your homework.

Sorry, but things are not that cut and dry. I'm not acting as anyone's
advocate.

Sure you are.

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 20:01:04 -0400, "Robert L. Bass"
wrote:

It would be fair if you weren't acting as Arnold's
advocate. Since you are, you're acting on very
sketchy information. You need to do your homework.

Sorry, but things are not that cut and dry. I'm not acting as anyone's
advocate.

Sure you are.

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 20:21:47 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

The right wing Christians would screem for him to be pulled off of the
shelves because he was gay.

Since so many non-Christians would do the identical same thing, the
inclusion of the word "Christian" is obviously gratuitous.

Nope.

It appearance speaks to Weil's desire to deceive others, and demonize a word that scares
him to death.

Absolutely not. I was simply commenting on the the way right-wing
Christians demonize certain authors.

If you'd like, we can talk about all of the books like To Kill a
Mockingbird that the *left* has tried to get pulled from library
shelves.

Oh wait, I probably can't...

I *will* note however, that's it's possible that there has been 1 out
of a million right wing people trying to ban books that has been
Jewish.

But all of this is mountain out of a molehill stuff. As usual, you
simply want to pick nits with everything I say. It was a joking reply
to a comment that was made, and you want to take it literally.

shrug

Oh yeah, it's scream, of course.

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 20:21:47 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

The right wing Christians would screem for him to be pulled off of the
shelves because he was gay.

Since so many non-Christians would do the identical same thing, the
inclusion of the word "Christian" is obviously gratuitous.

Nope.

It appearance speaks to Weil's desire to deceive others, and demonize a word that scares
him to death.

Absolutely not. I was simply commenting on the the way right-wing
Christians demonize certain authors.

If you'd like, we can talk about all of the books like To Kill a
Mockingbird that the *left* has tried to get pulled from library
shelves.

Oh wait, I probably can't...

I *will* note however, that's it's possible that there has been 1 out
of a million right wing people trying to ban books that has been
Jewish.

But all of this is mountain out of a molehill stuff. As usual, you
simply want to pick nits with everything I say. It was a joking reply
to a comment that was made, and you want to take it literally.

shrug

Oh yeah, it's scream, of course.

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 13:57:38 -0400, "Robert L. Bass"
wrote:

Personally I prefer Moby Dick to the Bible.
I'd like to see more Melville refs and less
references to Bibles and Jesus and such, generally.

WHAT WOULD ISHMAEL DO?

Interesting choice of literature. One of the many undercurrents of "Moby
Dick" was the strange friendship between two of the protagonists -- Ishmael
and Queequeg -- who agreed to disagree on matters of religion.

"Their achievement of mutual tolerance, coming as it does before the
monomaniac Ahab has appeared on the scene, forms both a prelude and a
contrast to the book's main story, suggesting mixity and non-dogmatism as an
alternative to Ahab's confrontational, all-or-nothing relation to the
universe." -- CHRISTOPHER ROLLASON

Imagine what Melville might have written if he were our contemporary. :^)

I suspect he would not have made an audacious statement such as "Jesus
is an absolute truth"

It's not that I don't like Christians or Christian ideals, but I don't
like those that try to presuppose that their ideas are absolute
truths, which by fiat makes others ideas absolute untruths (regarding
religion, or lack thereof)

now maybe you will realize why you have been roundly criticized for
your statement.

Grant Kinsley MD

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 13:57:38 -0400, "Robert L. Bass"
wrote:

Personally I prefer Moby Dick to the Bible.
I'd like to see more Melville refs and less
references to Bibles and Jesus and such, generally.

WHAT WOULD ISHMAEL DO?

Interesting choice of literature. One of the many undercurrents of "Moby
Dick" was the strange friendship between two of the protagonists -- Ishmael
and Queequeg -- who agreed to disagree on matters of religion.

"Their achievement of mutual tolerance, coming as it does before the
monomaniac Ahab has appeared on the scene, forms both a prelude and a
contrast to the book's main story, suggesting mixity and non-dogmatism as an
alternative to Ahab's confrontational, all-or-nothing relation to the
universe." -- CHRISTOPHER ROLLASON

Imagine what Melville might have written if he were our contemporary. :^)

I suspect he would not have made an audacious statement such as "Jesus
is an absolute truth"

It's not that I don't like Christians or Christian ideals, but I don't
like those that try to presuppose that their ideas are absolute
truths, which by fiat makes others ideas absolute untruths (regarding
religion, or lack thereof)

now maybe you will realize why you have been roundly criticized for
your statement.

Grant Kinsley MD

Tell that to Jesus's disciples and their followers. The healing ministry of the
Christian church continued for about 300 years, until Christianity was absorbed
by the Roman empire as the state religion.

Christians don't heal people. That responsibility falls to Someone else.

Tell that to Jesus's disciples and their followers. The healing ministry of the
Christian church continued for about 300 years, until Christianity was absorbed
by the Roman empire as the state religion.

Christians don't heal people. That responsibility falls to Someone else.

I don't want to use a kill filter on "Denon vs Yamaha receiver" as
there have been some interesting view points here. But a new thread
should be started to continue this off topic subject. It would be very
useful to others in a more appropriate group.

I don't mean to offend anyone by this. It is just a lot posts to
sift through when you interested in the original topic.


On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 20:19:02 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"George M. Middius" wrote in message


I realize that millions of nitwits want to be brainwashed and have
other people tell them what to do.

A situation that is so comment that it is irrelevant to any reasonable
discussion of the Bible.

Your "christian" beliefs are the
cause of most of this country's social problems,

Prove it.

and they cost us all
billions of bucks every year in misspent tax dollars.

Prove it.

Maybe you're right though. Crucifying the worst of your lot seems
better than a quiet drowning.

Middius stupidly wants to crucify the hand that feeds him.

I don't want to use a kill filter on "Denon vs Yamaha receiver" as
there have been some interesting view points here. But a new thread
should be started to continue this off topic subject. It would be very
useful to others in a more appropriate group.

I don't mean to offend anyone by this. It is just a lot posts to
sift through when you interested in the original topic.


On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 20:19:02 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"George M. Middius" wrote in message


I realize that millions of nitwits want to be brainwashed and have
other people tell them what to do.

A situation that is so comment that it is irrelevant to any reasonable
discussion of the Bible.

Your "christian" beliefs are the
cause of most of this country's social problems,

Prove it.

and they cost us all
billions of bucks every year in misspent tax dollars.

Prove it.

Maybe you're right though. Crucifying the worst of your lot seems
better than a quiet drowning.

Middius stupidly wants to crucify the hand that feeds him.

I used to think that was true, too. Then one day I met
Someone who changed my point of view.

You are assuming that your point of view is an absolute
truth by that statement.

No. I'm stating that I had a personal experience which changed my mind
about the subject.

Here's how it works for me. I'm certain enough of the veracity of my
beliefs to base my life on them. I'm happy enough with the results of
living that way to want to share my beliefs. However, I'm not so hung up on
my beliefs that I insist that you follow them. My responsibility is to say
what I think may be helpful to others. What you do with that information is
your choice. If some mindless parochial school teacher tried to beat faith
into you as a child I can do nothing to change that. If some overbearing
Christian tried to shove his faith down your throat so that you now find
Christianity repugnant, I can do nothing about that either. Even if you
choose to take offense at my simple comments for no reason at all I can do
nothing about it.

I can only say that I made a decision to believe many years ago and the
results were nothing less than spectacular. For me that is proof enough.
Note, however, that the proof is a result of a decision to believe -- not
the other way around.

I would beg to differ.

No need to beg. To quote another USENET poster's wry sig line, "Umbrage is
free. Take all you want."

I used to think that was true, too. Then one day I met
Someone who changed my point of view.

You are assuming that your point of view is an absolute
truth by that statement.

No. I'm stating that I had a personal experience which changed my mind
about the subject.

Here's how it works for me. I'm certain enough of the veracity of my
beliefs to base my life on them. I'm happy enough with the results of
living that way to want to share my beliefs. However, I'm not so hung up on
my beliefs that I insist that you follow them. My responsibility is to say
what I think may be helpful to others. What you do with that information is
your choice. If some mindless parochial school teacher tried to beat faith
into you as a child I can do nothing to change that. If some overbearing
Christian tried to shove his faith down your throat so that you now find
Christianity repugnant, I can do nothing about that either. Even if you
choose to take offense at my simple comments for no reason at all I can do
nothing about it.

I can only say that I made a decision to believe many years ago and the
results were nothing less than spectacular. For me that is proof enough.
Note, however, that the proof is a result of a decision to believe -- not
the other way around.

I would beg to differ.

No need to beg. To quote another USENET poster's wry sig line, "Umbrage is
free. Take all you want."

Sorry, but things are not that cut and dry. I'm not acting as anyone's
advocate. I stated what I have seen.

Your testimony was so far from the truth -- the actual, objective,
verifiable truth -- that you came off as a propagandist.

Testimony? This *isn't* a court room. I only stated what I have seen so
far. If you are aware of other things which I have not seen that's not my
problem.

This is not a court room and I don't
have to investigate Arny, you or anyone else.

Your own standards for satisfying yourself
are just that -- your own.

Correct.

But at least now you know why the rest of think
you're either an idiot or Kroo-tool.

Well, I've been called an idiot before. I guess it won't hurt too much if
you think so, too. Calling me an idiot won't make you seem any brighter
though.

Sorry, but things are not that cut and dry. I'm not acting as anyone's
advocate. I stated what I have seen.

Your testimony was so far from the truth -- the actual, objective,
verifiable truth -- that you came off as a propagandist.

Testimony? This *isn't* a court room. I only stated what I have seen so
far. If you are aware of other things which I have not seen that's not my
problem.

This is not a court room and I don't
have to investigate Arny, you or anyone else.

Your own standards for satisfying yourself
are just that -- your own.

Correct.

But at least now you know why the rest of think
you're either an idiot or Kroo-tool.

Well, I've been called an idiot before. I guess it won't hurt too much if
you think so, too. Calling me an idiot won't make you seem any brighter
though.

I suspect he would not have made an audacious
statement such as "Jesus is an absolute truth"

Actually, that is not what I said. However, what I did say is only
audacious if it's not true. If I'm right you have a desparate need in your
life. If I'm worng you may or may not have a desparate need in your life.

It's not that I don't like Christians or Christian
ideals, but I don't like those that try to presuppose
that their ideas are absolute truths...
which by fiat makes others ideas absolute
untruths (regarding religion, or lack thereof)

Naah. There is a lot of value in most religions and belief systems. I've
been enjoying the book, "The Alchemist," by Paulo Coelho over the past few
days. The protagonist is Christian but as he travels through the book's
journey he learns much of value from people of diverse faiths.

I have many Orthodox Jewish clients whose lifestyle and faith is very
different from mine. Yet I have learned much about life and relationships
from some of them.

now maybe you will realize why you have
been roundly criticized for your statement.

As this is a text medium I hadn't noticed your rotundity. Criticism is part
of USENET. I've been more severely criticized for refusing to attack Arny
than for off-handedly mentioning that Jesus is Lord (which He is).

I suspect he would not have made an audacious
statement such as "Jesus is an absolute truth"

Actually, that is not what I said. However, what I did say is only
audacious if it's not true. If I'm right you have a desparate need in your
life. If I'm worng you may or may not have a desparate need in your life.

It's not that I don't like Christians or Christian
ideals, but I don't like those that try to presuppose
that their ideas are absolute truths...
which by fiat makes others ideas absolute
untruths (regarding religion, or lack thereof)

Naah. There is a lot of value in most religions and belief systems. I've
been enjoying the book, "The Alchemist," by Paulo Coelho over the past few
days. The protagonist is Christian but as he travels through the book's
journey he learns much of value from people of diverse faiths.

I have many Orthodox Jewish clients whose lifestyle and faith is very
different from mine. Yet I have learned much about life and relationships
from some of them.

now maybe you will realize why you have
been roundly criticized for your statement.

As this is a text medium I hadn't noticed your rotundity. Criticism is part
of USENET. I've been more severely criticized for refusing to attack Arny
than for off-handedly mentioning that Jesus is Lord (which He is).

Tell that to Jesus's disciples and their followers. The healing ministry
of the
Christian church continued for about 300 years, until Christianity was
absorbed
by the Roman empire as the state religion.

You missed the point. Christians don't heal people. We pray and God
(sometimes) heals them. If we could heal without His help there would be no
sickness or death in the world and everyone would be starving, not to
mention stepping on each other's toes.

The healing ministry of the Church did not stop with its adoption as the
state religion of Rome. People are still being healed today.

Tell that to Jesus's disciples and their followers. The healing ministry
of the
Christian church continued for about 300 years, until Christianity was
absorbed
by the Roman empire as the state religion.

You missed the point. Christians don't heal people. We pray and God
(sometimes) heals them. If we could heal without His help there would be no
sickness or death in the world and everyone would be starving, not to
mention stepping on each other's toes.

The healing ministry of the Church did not stop with its adoption as the
state religion of Rome. People are still being healed today.

I only stated what I have seen so far.

Look up "testimony" in the dictionary, fool.

Hmm. Because I refuse to get involved in your personal war with Arny you
say I'm a fool. YUou're not doing much to convince me that you're his
victim.

If you are aware of other things which I have not seen that's not my
problem.

Like I said before, you make your bed, and
then you lie in it.

What a strange choice of trite sayings. I guess it seemed brilliant to you
when you wrote it though. :^)

You're pretty dim, really you are.

Perhaps. Then again, perhaps I'm just not interested in your little
vendetta.

When I saw your Kroogeresque responses to my
earlier attempt to show why your blowhard
proselytizing was obnoxious, I should have realized
it's hopeless to try and separate your from your
fantasy world.

Seems to me you've taken offense at comments about your alleged fantasies.
I should think you would choose your words more carefully.

Anyway, friend, I've nothing personal against you, Dave or Arny so far.
You've apparently divided your world into those who are pro-Arny and those
who are anti-Arny. In so doing you miss any opportunity for constructive
discussion with at least half (probably more) of the folks who visit these
newsgroups. Arny hasn't done that (at least not where I've seen it) so I'll
probably just go along on my dimwitted, stupid, foolish way treating him
with respect.

Regards,
Robert

I only stated what I have seen so far.

Look up "testimony" in the dictionary, fool.

Hmm. Because I refuse to get involved in your personal war with Arny you
say I'm a fool. YUou're not doing much to convince me that you're his
victim.

If you are aware of other things which I have not seen that's not my
problem.

Like I said before, you make your bed, and
then you lie in it.

What a strange choice of trite sayings. I guess it seemed brilliant to you
when you wrote it though. :^)

You're pretty dim, really you are.

Perhaps. Then again, perhaps I'm just not interested in your little
vendetta.

When I saw your Kroogeresque responses to my
earlier attempt to show why your blowhard
proselytizing was obnoxious, I should have realized
it's hopeless to try and separate your from your
fantasy world.

Seems to me you've taken offense at comments about your alleged fantasies.
I should think you would choose your words more carefully.

Anyway, friend, I've nothing personal against you, Dave or Arny so far.
You've apparently divided your world into those who are pro-Arny and those
who are anti-Arny. In so doing you miss any opportunity for constructive
discussion with at least half (probably more) of the folks who visit these
newsgroups. Arny hasn't done that (at least not where I've seen it) so I'll
probably just go along on my dimwitted, stupid, foolish way treating him
with respect.

Regards,
Robert

In alt.home-theater.misc Arny Krueger wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message

In alt.home-theater.misc Arny Krueger wrote:

"Andrew M." wrote in message
...

Maybe you didn't say it but someone did.

Speaks to your vague connection with reality, Andrew.


Any reference to Jesus is a
reference to that work of fiction called the bible...Go tout it
somewhere else.

Shows your bigotry and hysterical state of mind, Andrew. People
mention various written works of opinion, fact, theory, poetry,
stories, prognostication, you name it; all the time and as a rule
nobody goes ballistic.

OTOH if someone should be so brave as to mention the Bible in
public, it's not uncommon for some pathetic hysterical
Christian-hating bigot to fly off the handle and say all sorts of
crazy things. I suggest Andrew that you recognize that at the very
least the Bible is just another written work of opinion, fact,
theory, poetry, stories, prognostication, you name it, and get on
with the rest of your life.

It is, however a written work which has has, from some poitns of view,
a vastly inordinate amount of
influence over many people's lives, including those who would rather
not be influenced by it at all. And this has gone on for centuries.

Blame the Book for how people perceive it.

I blame both the writers and the people who dote on it.

Hence the rancor.

Hence the attempt to ban the Book.

I don't see much danger of that. It should certianly be kept out
of science classes, though.

Personally I prefer Moby Dick to the Bible.

Your privilege.

God bless America.

I'd like to see more Melville refs and less references to Bibles and
Jesus and such, generally.

You could be less transparent about wanting to impose your preferences on
me.

I could, but why should believers have a monopoly on that?

WHAT WOULD ISHMAEL DO?

Which Ishmael?

The better-written one.



--
-S.

In alt.home-theater.misc Arny Krueger wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message

In alt.home-theater.misc Arny Krueger wrote:

"Andrew M." wrote in message
...

Maybe you didn't say it but someone did.

Speaks to your vague connection with reality, Andrew.


Any reference to Jesus is a
reference to that work of fiction called the bible...Go tout it
somewhere else.

Shows your bigotry and hysterical state of mind, Andrew. People
mention various written works of opinion, fact, theory, poetry,
stories, prognostication, you name it; all the time and as a rule
nobody goes ballistic.

OTOH if someone should be so brave as to mention the Bible in
public, it's not uncommon for some pathetic hysterical
Christian-hating bigot to fly off the handle and say all sorts of
crazy things. I suggest Andrew that you recognize that at the very
least the Bible is just another written work of opinion, fact,
theory, poetry, stories, prognostication, you name it, and get on
with the rest of your life.

It is, however a written work which has has, from some poitns of view,
a vastly inordinate amount of
influence over many people's lives, including those who would rather
not be influenced by it at all. And this has gone on for centuries.

Blame the Book for how people perceive it.

I blame both the writers and the people who dote on it.

Hence the rancor.

Hence the attempt to ban the Book.

I don't see much danger of that. It should certianly be kept out
of science classes, though.

Personally I prefer Moby Dick to the Bible.

Your privilege.

God bless America.

I'd like to see more Melville refs and less references to Bibles and
Jesus and such, generally.

You could be less transparent about wanting to impose your preferences on
me.

I could, but why should believers have a monopoly on that?

WHAT WOULD ISHMAEL DO?

Which Ishmael?

The better-written one.



--
-S.

In alt.home-theater.misc badger cferriola@1remove numbers2triad.rr.com wrote:
you missed the point. Let's drop it!
Clay


LOL. Believers...you can't take them *anywhere*.




--
-S.