Just because the bible says it doesn't mean that you have to dangle it
in my face.

badger wrote:

Just for the record.... In the bible, It says that Jesus spoke to people
everywhere and all the time.

It also says that person were to follow in his footsteps and preach and
teach everywhere.

Therefore, If Christians believe the Bible, then they have no choice but to
speak of it everywhere and all the time.

Now let's drop it guys. Let's not make it a religious forum, but let's not
get carried away trying to force non religious views either.
Clay

"badger" cferriola@1remove numbers2triad.rr.com shelleyed:

Therefore, If Christians believe the Bible, then they have no choice but to
speak of it everywhere and all the time.

No wonder the Romans were so quick to toss 'em to the lions.

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."

See ya
Steve

--
*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
VIP RECORDS: Rare 78 rpm recordings on CD in great sound
20s Dance Bands - Swing - Opera - Classical - Vaudeville - Ragtime
FREE MP3s OF COMPLETE SONGS http://www.vintageip.com/records/

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

You're confusing Christians in general with the radical right.

No. I said right wing Christians. I didn't say Christians.
No confusion there. I was quite specific.

You did indeed.

Most of us are much more tolerant than you might think.

I actually have a good friend that I would consider a right-wing
Christian in many ways. However, he's a tolerant guy, as well as being
one of the most knowlegeable people about modern popular music around.
So your statement even applies to a small segment of the right-wing
Christian community as well.

Bear in mind that the radical "Christian Right" is
neither Christian nor right much of the time. Just
as Muslims have a small group of crazies who
think they serve Allah by murdering innocent
civilians, there are a small group of loud-mouthed,
Bible-thumping jerks who use Christianity as an
excuse to attack everyone different from themselves.
Most Muslims find their crazies repugnant and
most Christians find our own group of crazies
despicable.

Please don't confuse Christianity with the politics of
Pat Robertson and other such monsters.

They are right wing Christians. You can't deny that
they consider themselves Christians.

I'm sure they do. I'm not in charge of deciding whose faith counts. That
will be between them and their Maker.

We're not all machine gun-toting lemmings
following deluded, racist bigots to the precipice
and killing "heathen" along the way. There are
plenty of us who don't believe in abortion but
we don't ally ourselves with the nut-cases who
bomb clinics and murder doctors. We may not
believe in homosexuality but that doesn't mean
we condemn homosexuals.

But some of you do - even some not on the right wing.

Most of the negative comments here were directed at me personally for
expressing my faith; not at "some" others. BTW, some non-Chroistians
confuse "conservative, fundamentalist" with "right wing." The former are
those who believe the tenets of the Bible, expect miracles today and (try
to) make their personal Christian beliefs the guiding principle of their
lives. "Right wing" to me means hard-nosed, politically activist,
mean-spirited and judgmental. It often means bigoted, uncaring and
supportive of all things Republican (though not all Republicans are at all
like that). It rarely has any concept of the pinciples of charity that
Jesus taught.

FTR, I'm a "fundamentalist" in that I believe that Biblical principles apply
today; that God still does miracles and that one can have a personal
*relationship* with deity. This is nothing like the ritualistic religiosity
that is sometimes held up as "faith."

As a conservative Christian I believe that it is my
responsibility to try to live right and to exercise my
faith -- not to force you to believe as I do.

That's a good way to live.

It would be even beter if I was more consistent about it. Like I said, I'm
only human. :^)

Unfortunately, a few self-appointed "leaders" have
given the rest of us a bad name. They run around
condemning others as "sinners" while ignoring the
major problems in their own lives.

I would also agree with that.

PS, I'm not confusing Melville with Whitman, who
actually *was* gay, BTW. I was just being sarcastic.

I thought they were both gay. According to popular opinion so are/were
Thomas Mann, James Baldwin, Marcel Proust, Oscar Wilde, Gore Vidal, Virginia
Woolf, D.H. Lawrence and many other wonderfully creative people without whom
the world would be a much crummier place to live.

Regards,
Robert

=============================
Bass Home Electronics, Inc
2291 Pine View Circle
Sarasota · Florida · 34231
877-722-8900 Sales & Tech Support
941-925-9747 Fax
941-232-0791 Wireless
Nextel Private ID - 161*21755*1
http://www.bass-home.com
=============================

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

I prefer not to.

Sorry, you're in church now. You have to do
what the preacher tells you to do.

OK. In that case I hereby order you to think for yourself, form your own
conclusions and live by them.

All I have to say is "Prove it!", and your argument
doesn't exist. One cannot justify faith...so YOU drop it.

Some people once said the same thing to a man born blind. He replied, "I
once was blind but now I see." I won't bore you with the details but I can
tell you that an encounter of faith over a quarter century ago changed my
whole life for the better.

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

I thought they were both gay. According to popular opinion so are/were
Thomas Mann, James Baldwin, Marcel Proust, Oscar Wilde, Gore Vidal,
Virginia Woolf, D. H. Lawrence and many other wonderfully creative people
without whom the world would be a much crummier place to live.

I don't know about crummier, but definitely less interesting.

William F. Buckley would not agree with you about Mr. Veedal. I remember
watching the 1968 Democratic convention and hearing Buckley call Vidal a faggot,
and Vidal call Buckley a crypto-fascist. Ahnold telling Huffington he has a role
for her in "Terminator 4" doesn't come even close.

Add Shakespeare (almost definitely), Michaelangelo Buonarotti (definitely),
Leonardo da Vinci (pretty certain), Tchaikovsky, Britten, Bernstein, Poulenc,
Copland, Virgil Fox.

Not an accurate statement. A better one would be
if you can heal you may be a Christian.

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

Robert L. Bass said:

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

I prefer not to.

Sorry, you're in church now. You have to do
what the preacher tells you to do.

OK. In that case I hereby order you to think for yourself, form your own
conclusions and live by them.

Trying to short us out, eh? Wicked of you.

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 18:49:22 -0400, "Robert L. Bass"
wrote:

I saw a few comments about you supposedly posting "pedophile fantasies"

No, I don't think he has accused me of that.

Sorry. That must have been the other gentleman. The same rule applies
though. If I didn't see him do it I take accusations posted in USENET with
a large grain of salt.

It looks like the two of you have had an
ongoing war of words for a while.

Absolutely.

I see both of you posting unpleasantness about each other.

Absolutely.

None of that has much to do
with Yamaha, Denon, Jesus or me.

Agreed.

However, Arnold's anger knows no bounds.

Still, if you're going to make statements like "I've
only seen him post about audio and in that regard
he's knowledgeable and seems fair minded enough",
you really *should* do your homework.

I respectfully disagree. My statement stands. I only said what I have
seen. If he has said something which you consider offensive in a newsgroup
which I don't read, that is between you and him. If I wanted to dig deep
enough I'm sure I could find someone somewhere who hates just about anyone
who has spent any significant time posting to USENET. By the time I finish
I won't want to converse with anyone. I don't come here to find out if Arny
has some dirty linens elsewhere. For that matter, I don't have any reason
to believe that he does. When he posts about audio I read it. Sometimes I
agree. Sometimes not. Sometimes I learn something from him. There may
even be times when he learns something from me. The same applies to you.
I'd rather know what you have to say here than try to find evidence
somewhere that you're a bad guy.

90% of the posts that he makes on RAO are...

Of no concern to me. That also applies to your posts there. You may be the
finest gentleman who has ever graced that newsgroup or the worst
sludge-tossing boor in all history. If you contribute useful stuff -- even
stuff with which I might not agree -- you're OK in my book. By the same
token if you post a bunch of abuse at me without provocation I'll probably
chalk you up as useless even if you have solved world peace in another
forum.

Fair enough?

Actually no.

Why?

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.

shrug

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 19:19:48 -0400, "Robert L. Bass"
wrote:

PS, I'm not confusing Melville with Whitman, who
actually *was* gay, BTW. I was just being sarcastic.

I thought they were both gay. According to popular opinion so are/were
Thomas Mann, James Baldwin, Marcel Proust, Oscar Wilde, Gore Vidal, Virginia
Woolf, D.H. Lawrence and many other wonderfully creative people without whom
the world would be a much crummier place to live.

Unlike Melville though, I think that everyone of the people you
mentioned were either admittedly gay or pretty much acknowledged as
such. I'm not sure that this is the same for Melville, but I could be
wrong.

You left out David Geffin and Jann Wenner of course g.

"Andrew M." writes:

All I have to say is "Prove it!", and your argument doesn't
exist. One cannot justify faith...so YOU drop it.

There are some things that cannot be proved.

From [1]:

In 1931, the Czech-born mathematician Kurt Godel demonstrated
that within any given branch of mathematics, there would always
be some propositions that couldn't be proven either true or false
using the rules and axioms ... of that mathematical branch
itself. [...] The implication is that all logical system of any
complexity are, by definition, incomplete; each of them contains,
at any given time, more true statements than it can possibly
prove according to its own defining set of rules.

And from the same site (very bottom):

Godel showed that provability is a weaker notion than truth, no
matter what axiom system is involved ...

If you want to argue with this theorem I recommend you look up your
friendly neighbourhood mathematician/logician.

[1] http://www.miskatonic.org/godel.html

--
David Magda dmagda at ee.ryerson.ca, http://www.magda.ca/
Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under
the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well
under the new. -- Niccolo Machiavelli, _The Prince_, Chapter VI

I thought they were both gay. According to popular opinion so are/were
Thomas Mann, James Baldwin, Marcel Proust, Oscar Wilde, Gore Vidal,
Virginia Woolf, D. H. Lawrence and many other wonderfully creative people
without whom the world would be a much crummier place to live.

I don't know about crummier, but definitely less interesting.

William F. Buckley would not agree with you about Mr. Veedal.

"Mister Veedal!!!" You're obviously old enough to remember Laugh-In.

I remember watching the 1968 Democratic convention

I remember too. "The whole world's watching!!! The whole world's
watching!!!" I had previously seen the brutality of the CPD firsthand but
even so I could hardly believe the extent of the violence.

and hearing Buckley call Vidal a faggot, and Vidal call
Buckley a crypto-fascist. Ahnold telling Huffington he
has a role for her in "Terminator 4" doesn't come even
close.

Arnold is a jerk of the first order. I like his wierd humor in the movies.
As a politician he'll be a disaster.

Add Shakespeare (almost definitely)...

Perhaps. Some people believe Shakespeare as the nom de plume of a woman
author.

Michaelangelo Buonarotti (definitely), Leonardo da Vinci
(pretty certain), Tchaikovsky, Britten, Bernstein, Poulenc,
Copland, Virgil Fox...

The list goes on and on. The fact is that bigotry in all its forms
invariably seeks to destroy the finest minds. It makes no difference
whether those minds are Christian, Buddhist, gay, lesbian or even atheist.

OK. In that case I hereby order you to think for
yourself, form your own conclusions and live by them.

Trying to short us out, eh? Wicked of you.

Heh, heh, heh. :^)

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

PS, I'm not confusing Melville with Whitman, who
actually *was* gay, BTW. I was just being sarcastic.

I thought they were both gay. According to popular
opinion so are/were Thomas Mann, James Baldwin,
Marcel Proust, Oscar Wilde, Gore Vidal, Virginia Woolf,
D.H. Lawrence and many other wonderfully creative
people without whom the world would be a much
crummier place to live.

Unlike Melville though, I think that everyone of the
people you mentioned were either admittedly gay or
pretty much acknowledged as such. I'm not sure that
this is the same for Melville, but I could be wrong.

Correct. I didn't mean to imply that Melville was admittedly gay. I only
meant to point out that many of the best known writers are/were.

You left out David Geffin and Jann Wenner of course g.

And many more.

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.

"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?

"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.

"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.

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

Robert L. Bass said:

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. 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.

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

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 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.

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."

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).

Robert L. Bass said:

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.

Look up "testimony" in the dictionary, fool.

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.

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.

You're pretty dim, really you are. 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.

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

Robert L. Bass said:

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.

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.

No, dummy. You're a fool because you can't follow the conversation.
See above -- you tried to rebut my point by affirming it.

YUou're not doing much to convince me that you're his victim.

Very good. I'm doing nothing to convince you or anybody of that,
because I am not his victim. I don't care what that disgusting sack of
**** says about me. Certain others take offense at Turdborg's vileness
toward them, but I ignore the stupid things he says about me.


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. :^)

Brilliant? There's something really wrong in your brain. There's a
pattern I perceive -- you've repeatedly, and incorrectly, tried to
characterize others' motivations and reasons for what they said. This
is just one example. Another example is just above, where you leaped
wildly to the erroneous conclusion that I called you a fool because
you refuse to accept the truth about Krooger. For that failing, I
called you an idiot. Then you blithely, and wrongly, implied I'm
trying to convince you I'm Krooger's "victim".

The comment about lying in the bed you make was simply a restatement
of what I said earlier: Your stated opinion about Krooger's posts
illuminates, for some of us, what kind of thought processes you have.


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.

The fantasies are yours, Bible-thumper.

A realistic person knows that your smug boasting about straightening
out your life are crap. You accomplished any improvements because you
chose to, not because of some figment of your imagination. You've
admitted you did whatever it was you did because you believe you were
inspired by "Jesus" or "God" or something. That's fantasizing.


Anyway, friend, I've nothing personal against you, Dave or Arny so far.

Nor I against you, personally anyway. I have an opinion about you, but
it doesn't mean you've hurt me.


You've apparently divided your world into those who are pro-Arny and those
who are anti-Arny.

It's not my "world", it's RAO. And, thanks to the reportage of certain
other Usenetters who frequent other audio groups, the nastiness of
Krooger is widely recognized on RAO as a cancer on those groups.

In so doing you miss any opportunity for constructive
discussion with at least half (probably more) of the folks who visit these
newsgroups.

Only half? From what I've seen, at least half of the posters are
newbies, and three-quarters of the rest are anti-audio dweebs. Usenet
in general is not a great source of info, except inasmuch as you can
find virtually any topic being discussed somewhere. But overall, there
are far more poseurs than truly knowledgeable people.

Arny hasn't done that

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Tuck yourself in snug, Bible-boy.

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.