[Arny Krueger]

"roughplanet" wrote in message
u...

and if you read JC's answer completely, he/she says:

note the out-context-quote - the idea that ruff quotes is presented by the
author as being a bad idea

'Evangelical Christians: Usually about the same as fundies. They are not
liturgical in their worship style for the most part either.

Obviously ruff, in your rush to judgement, you made a grevious error by
picking ideas that the author presented as being incomplete or wrong.

An interesting documentary made by Alexandra Pelosi, the daughter of
leading Democrat politician and House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/conte...7/s2006096.htm

highlighted the new title of 'Evangelical Christians' that is currently
being used by groups/sects/churches that previously (i.e. pre 9/11)
classified themselves as Christian Fundamentalists.

The author gets to make stupid mistakes in print, just as you do ruff.

I suggest that it's you who are confused Arny, or perhaps you're just
regurgitating the beliefs of the leader of your particular sect. Hmm?

Actually ruff, I rather sharply disagree with my pastor, as he is a troubled
man, both spiritually and in his personal life. A tragic error was made when
he was elevated to the position of senior pastor. He's way over his head.

Mad is mad, no matter what the flavour.

Mad is trying to talk like an expert in areas you know nothing of, like
Christianity.

Again Arny, you are merely making assumptions about something of which
you have no knowledge at all.

I dunno ruff. I said you were ignorant and you proved it twice.

No Arny, I'll say it again. It's you who are ignorant, quoting anonymous
posters as if they were authorities on the point you are trying so
stupidly to defend.

Well ruff, I can lead a horse to water...

It's you who know nothing of what areas I am expert in and what areas
I'm not.

I'm ROTFLMAO at your excursions into genres of Christianty, Ruff. You
need a bumper car!

Then you need a tank Arny. You profess to be a BAC, but you're not even up
with the current position/fad on just what you people are calling
yourselves these days.

Sorry ruff, but unlike you, my beliefs aren't fads.

[roughplanet]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

"roughplanet" wrote in message
u...

and if you read JC's answer completely, he/she says:

note the out-context-quote - the idea that ruff quotes is presented by
the author as being a bad idea

'Evangelical Christians: Usually about the same as fundies. They are not
liturgical in their worship style for the most part either.

Obviously ruff, in your rush to judgement, you made a grevious error by
picking ideas that the author presented as being incomplete or wrong.

No Arny, you're wrong yet again. I was in no rush to judge anyone, the ideas
I mentioned
were those that YOU listed as Authorities (your term) to support your
argument that Christian Fundamentalists weren't Evangelicals and existed
alongside them.

This may or may not be the case; what I said was that fundamentalists were
now shedding that title in favour of evangelical, as evidenced in the
documentary I mentioned, which interviwed a number of church leaders, most
of whom were at pains to dismiss the use of the term 'fundamentalist' in
favour of evangelical.

Got it now Arny?


An interesting documentary made by Alexandra Pelosi, the daughter of
leading Democrat politician and House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/conte...7/s2006096.htm

highlighted the new title of 'Evangelical Christians' that is currently
being used by groups/sects/churches that previously (i.e. pre 9/11)
classified themselves as Christian Fundamentalists.

The author gets to make stupid mistakes in print, just as you do ruff.

No Arny, wrong again. If you read everything as carelessly as you read the
information that I presented about the DOCUMENTARY (not print) it's little
wonder you seem confused.

I suggest that it's you who are confused Arny, or perhaps you're just
regurgitating the beliefs of the leader of your particular sect. Hmm?

Actually ruff, I rather sharply disagree with my pastor, as he is a
troubled man, both spiritually and in his personal life. A tragic error
was made when he was elevated to the position of senior pastor. He's way
over his head.

Then allow me to suggest that you move on Arny and continue your spiritual
journey without him.

Mad is trying to talk like an expert in areas you know nothing of,
like Christianity.

Again Arny, you are merely making assumptions about something of which
you have no knowledge at all.

I dunno ruff. I said you were ignorant and you proved it twice.

No Arny, I'll say it again. It's you who are ignorant, quoting anonymous
posters as if they were authorities on the point you are trying so
stupidly to defend.

Well ruff, I can lead a horse to water...

It's you who know nothing of what areas I am expert in and what areas
I'm not.

I'm ROTFLMAO at your excursions into genres of Christianty, Ruff. You
need a bumper car!

Then you need a tank Arny. You profess to be a BAC, but you're not even
up with the current position/fad on just what you people are calling
yourselves these days.

Sorry ruff, but unlike you, my beliefs aren't fads.

I see. Now you're an expert on what I believe, are you? The truth is Arny,
you have no knowledge whatsoever of my spiritual beliefs, or even if I have
any.

However, I do, and they are most certainly not fads, as they began around
500 years earlier than did the story of the birth of Jesus Christ.

But your beliefs are just a 20th Century makeover of what the Church of Rome
chose to include in the book they called the New Testament, leaving out any
of the gospels that they
thought might compromise their power.

How can you base your beliefs on a document that is half missing? I most
certainly don't.

ruff

[Arny Krueger]

"roughplanet" wrote in message
...
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

"roughplanet" wrote in message
u...

and if you read JC's answer completely, he/she says:

note the out-context-quote - the idea that ruff quotes is presented by
the author as being a bad idea

'Evangelical Christians: Usually about the same as fundies. They are not
liturgical in their worship style for the most part either.

Obviously ruff, in your rush to judgement, you made a grevious error by
picking ideas that the author presented as being incomplete or wrong.

No Arny, you're wrong yet again. I was in no rush to judge anyone, the
ideas I mentioned
were those that YOU listed as Authorities (your term) to support your
argument that Christian Fundamentalists weren't Evangelicals and existed
alongside them.

OK ruff, so you can read and perceive correctly on occasion. Huzzah!

Yup, Christian fundamentalists and evangelicals may be slightly overlapping
groups, but they are generally distinct. Ruff, the world is full of
evangelicals who would gently correct you, and due to their excess
gentleness waste everybody's time, including yours.

This may or may not be the case; what I said was that fundamentalists
were
now shedding that title in favour of evangelical, as evidenced in the
documentary I mentioned, which interviwed a number of church leaders, most
of whom were at pains to dismiss the use of the term 'fundamentalist' in
favour of evangelical.

That's pretty much in agreement with what I said. Many evangelicals want to
make it clear that they are distinct from fundamentalists.

Got it now Arny?

Always did. I guess ruff that it is a mystery to you why some church
leaders would want to distance themselves from fundamentalism in these days,
since you're still trying to say they are the same, evidence that you've
just presented notwithstanding.

An interesting documentary made by Alexandra Pelosi, the daughter of
leading Democrat politician and House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/conte...7/s2006096.htm

highlighted the new title of 'Evangelical Christians' that is currently
being used by groups/sects/churches that previously (i.e. pre 9/11)
classified themselves as Christian Fundamentalists.

The term 'Evangelical Christians' has been around for more than a century:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangel...cal_moveme nt

"The contemporary evangelical movement has its origins in the 18th century,
when the First Great Awakening was deeply influencing American religious
life. In the same time period the Methodist movement was beginning to renew
parts of British Christianity, although this was at first resisted by the
majority of the Anglican established church."

There's even a good-sized denomination named the Evangelical Free Church,
with roots dating back at least 100 years.

http://www.efca.org/about/history/index.html

The word evanglical and people who call themselves evangelical have been
around for a very long time.

No Arny, wrong again. If you read everything as carelessly as you read the
information that I presented about the DOCUMENTARY (not print) it's little
wonder you seem confused.

You're splitting hairs ruff. Obviously you know that at the very least,
there are a great many people who are intimately involved with both and
consider it incorrect to equate Christian fundamentalism with
Evangelicalism.

I can't remember you ever admitting to an error (trivial or not) or even a
suboptimal shading of meaning, so your inability to accept this fact is
within your usual character or lack of it.

ny, or perhaps you're just
regurgitating the beliefs of the leader of your particular sect. Hmm?

Actually ruff, I rather sharply disagree with my pastor, as he is a
troubled man, both spiritually and in his personal life. A tragic error
was made when he was elevated to the position of senior pastor. He's way
over his head.

Then allow me to suggest that you move on Arny and continue your spiritual
journey without him.

Been there done that, but without a change of geography.

Mad is trying to talk like an expert in areas you know nothing of,
like Christianity.

Again Arny, you are merely making assumptions about something of which
you have no knowledge at all.

I dunno ruff. I said you were ignorant and you proved it twice.

No Arny, I'll say it again. It's you who are ignorant, quoting anonymous
posters as if they were authorities on the point you are trying so
stupidly to defend.

Well ruff, I can lead a horse to water...

It's you who know nothing of what areas I am expert in and what areas
I'm not.

I'm ROTFLMAO at your excursions into genres of Christianty, Ruff. You
need a bumper car!

Then you need a tank Arny. You profess to be a BAC, but you're not even
up with the current position/fad on just what you people are calling
yourselves these days.

Sorry ruff, but unlike you, my beliefs aren't fads.

I see. Now you're an expert on what I believe, are you?

Just keying off what you said...

The truth is Arny, you have no knowledge whatsoever of my spiritual
beliefs, or even if I have any.

Well, to claim to not have spiritual beliefs is very faddish these days.

However, I do, and they are most certainly not fads, as they began around
500 years earlier than did the story of the birth of Jesus Christ.

That late in the game? ;-)

I'm guessing that you are speaking of the ancient Hebrew writings, which
Christians generally honor as being holy.

But your beliefs are just a 20th Century makeover of what the Church of
Rome chose to include in the book they called the New Testament, leaving
out any of the gospels that they thought might compromise their power.

So goes the very trendy stories.

How can you base your beliefs on a document that is half missing? I most
certainly don't.

The truth is ruff, you have little or no knowledge whatsoever of my
spiritual beliefs.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 14, 8:38 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

I can't remember you ever admitting to an error (trivial or not) or even a
suboptimal shading of meaning, so your inability to accept this fact is
within your usual character or lack of it.

LOL!

[Clyde Slick]

On 14 Sep, 14:01, "Arny Krueger" wrote:


Actually ruff, I rather sharply disagree with my pastor, as he is a troubled
man, both spiritually and in his personal life. A tragic error was made when
he was elevated to the position of senior pastor. He's way over his head.


I am sure you will straighten out his spiritual
deficiencies forthwith!
After all, you've been there, done that!

[Clyde Slick]

On 14 Sep, 16:38, "Arny Krueger" wrote:


The truth is ruff, you have little or no knowledge whatsoever of my
spiritual beliefs.

being new here, ruff is not aware that your history of making
false accusations of receiving kiddie porn is an ingrained
part of your spiritual beliefs.

[roughplanet]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

"roughplanet" wrote in message
...



No Arny, wrong again. If you read everything as carelessly as you read
the information that I presented about the DOCUMENTARY (not print) it's
little wonder you seem confused.

You're splitting hairs ruff.
I can't remember you ever admitting to an error (trivial or not) or even a
suboptimal shading of meaning, so your inability to accept this fact is
within your usual character or lack of it.


Hah hah hah......... when YOU'RE wrong, I'M splitting hairs, eh? This the
first conversation you've ever had with me Arny, and yet you make a truly
silly remark like the above.
As is your want, you can't ever admit to being wrong, a trait you share with
another of aus.hi-fi's resident losers, Phil Allison, to whom I've
personally apologised on at lesast three occassions when I misread or
misunderstood something he said.
So much for your nonsense Arny. You're just another newsgroup nutter like
Philthy, but with a little more self control.

Mad is trying to talk like an expert in areas you know nothing of,
like Christianity.

Again Arny, you are merely making assumptions about something of
which you have no knowledge at all.

I dunno ruff. I said you were ignorant and you proved it twice.

No Arny, I'll say it again. It's you who are ignorant, quoting
anonymous posters as if they were authorities on the point you are
trying so stupidly to defend.

Well ruff, I can lead a horse to water...

It's you who know nothing of what areas I am expert in and what areas
I'm not.

I'm ROTFLMAO at your excursions into genres of Christianty, Ruff. You
need a bumper car!

Then you need a tank Arny. You profess to be a BAC, but you're not even
up with the current position/fad on just what you people are calling
yourselves these days.

Sorry ruff, but unlike you, my beliefs aren't fads.

I see. Now you're an expert on what I believe, are you?

Just keying off what you said...

You sound more like Phil Allison with every post Arny. He uses the term
'educated guesses' to cover his lies and misconceptions, whilst you use the
term 'just keying off what you said'. A guess is a guess, pure & simple, and
has only a 50% chance of being right.
But when you embelish it with your ego, it becomes a lie.

The truth is Arny, you have no knowledge whatsoever of my spiritual
beliefs, or even if I have any.

Well, to claim to not have spiritual beliefs is very faddish these days.

Once again, you're making assumptions Arny, and once again, they're wrong.

However, I do, and they are most certainly not fads, as they began around
500 years earlier than did the story of the birth of Jesus Christ.

That late in the game? ;-)

You think religion is a game, do you Arny? Maybe amongst your handwaving,
tongue-speaking lot it is, but not to others.

I'm guessing that you are speaking of the ancient Hebrew writings, which
Christians generally honor as being holy.

Another asuumption, and another wrong guess. Never heard of Gautama Buddha
Arny?

Rome chose to include in the book they called the New Testament, leaving
out any of the gospels that they thought might compromise their power.

So goes the very trendy stories.

Spoken like a true Christian Fundamentalist. But it's not a trendy story
Arny, it's historical fact, unlike your load of myths, mysteries, &
miracles.
Even the term BC, meaning 'Before Christ' is now being phased out in favour
of the term BCE or 'Before Commmon Era' to reflect the fact that there is
absolutely no proof of the existence of Jesus Christ whatsoever.

How can you base your beliefs on a document that is half missing? I most
certainly don't.

The truth is ruff, you have little or no knowledge whatsoever of my
spiritual beliefs.

Hang on Arny, that's my line. Pot, kettle black.

ruff

[roughplanet]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
ups.com...

On Sep 14, 8:38 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

I can't remember you ever admitting to an error (trivial or not) or even
a
suboptimal shading of meaning, so your inability to accept this fact is
within your usual character or lack of it.

LOL!

Yes, that was a very funny line coming from Arny, wasn't it :-).

ruff

[roughplanet]

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
ps.com...

On 14 Sep, 16:38, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

The truth is ruff, you have little or no knowledge whatsoever of my
spiritual beliefs.

being new here, ruff is not aware that your history of making
false accusations of receiving kiddie porn is an ingrained
part of your spiritual beliefs.

That's true Clyde, but I have had some experience with Philthy Allison, and
they appear to be kindred spirits (no pun intended).

ruff

[roughplanet]

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
ups.com...

On 14 Sep, 14:01, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

Actually ruff, I rather sharply disagree with my pastor, as he is a
troubled
man, both spiritually and in his personal life. A tragic error was made
when
he was elevated to the position of senior pastor. He's way over his head.

I am sure you will straighten out his spiritual
deficiencies forthwith!
After all, you've been there, done that!

LOL!

ruff