Krooger vs. Christianity

[George M. Middius]

The kwestion of whether the Krooborg is a Christian has surfaced again.
Mr. **** now tells us that despite having frequently klaimed Christian
cred in the past, he is not actually a Christian. And despite all his
posts about his glorious activities in the service of "God" and his
church, he is not actually a Christian. And even though he's told us of
his membership in that righteous tribe of hypocrites called "Promise
Breakers" and of his erstwhile avocation as a Sunday school teacher, he is
not actually a Christian.

The most likely explanation for this round of Kroo-lies is the obvious
one: The Beast is terrified of being cornered into admitting an obvious
truth, so he fires up his "debating trade" SmokeMaster™ machine and flings
as much crapola as he can in every direction. If the past is any guide to
the future, Krooger will reverse himself totally on this point in a few
months, claiming some fealty to "Christianity" in order to excuse some
future nasty behavior. Time will tell.

In the meantime, there's absolutely no doubt that Krooger konsiders
himself a Christian. We have the plentiful evidence of his attacks on Jeff
Adams, a genuine fundie who tried to engage Turdborg in an honest ;-)
discussion of Christian values. Here are some points of reference:

> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/browse_frm/thread/ecca256a5039d745/70f7fffe66b61b74?hl=en#70f7fffe66b61b74
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/browse_frm/thread/95c6160bba184e6a/c6d1cc55e4d592ca?hl=en#c6d1cc55e4d592ca
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/browse_frm/thread/ba848467fe397350/504dbcbed18f988a?hl=en#504dbcbed18f988a
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/browse_frm/thread/b20836ad874a77e3/93f67d4cb03b28dc?hl=en#93f67d4cb03b28dc

There are many others as well. These exchanges reveal the essence of
Kroofulness: vindictiveness, paranoia, rampant dishonesty, self-hatred,
raging egomania, etc. Not for the squeamish.







--
A day without Krooger is like a day without arsenic.

[[email protected]]

Shovels wrote:

> Mr. **** now
> The most likely explanation for this round of Kroo-lies is

Shovels, why are you so angry? I really want to know.

> discussion of Christian values. Here are some points of reference:
>
> > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/browse_frm/thread/ecca256a5039d745/70f7fffe66b61b74?hl=en#70f7fffe66b61b74
> > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/browse_frm/thread/95c6160bba184e6a/c6d1cc55e4d592ca?hl=en#c6d1cc55e4d592ca
> > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/browse_frm/thread/ba848467fe397350/504dbcbed18f988a?hl=en#504dbcbed18f988a
> > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/browse_frm/thread/b20836ad874a77e3/93f67d4cb03b28dc?hl=en#93f67d4cb03b28dc
>
> There are many others as well. These exchanges reveal the essence of
> Kroofulness: vindictiveness, paranoia, rampant dishonesty, self-hatred,
> raging egomania, etc.

Shovels... why are you so obsessed with people who only live in your
fantasy life? I really want to know.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Don't be too hard on yourself, Shovie. You can always take some
classes in
remedical English to improve your spelling ability. ;-)" - George
"Shovels" Middius

"Shovie has his own kind of spelling. It involves lots of perorations.
" - George "Shovels" Middius
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Shovels... why do you say stupid things like the above? Do you hate
yourself, and so the self-ridicule?

[Robert Morein]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Shovels wrote:
>
>> Mr. **** now
>> The most likely explanation for this round of Kroo-lies is
>
> Shovels, why are you so angry? I really want to know.
>
Dear Mr. Graham:
"Shovels" is the term by which George Middius refers to you.

Regards,
Robert Morein

[George M. Middius]

Robert Morein said:

> Dear Mr. Graham:
> "Shovels" is the term by which George Middius refers to you.

Shovels is obviously quite confused, poor thing.





--
A day without Krooger is like a day without arsenic.

[Robert Morein]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
>
> The kwestion of whether the Krooborg is a Christian has surfaced again.
> Mr. **** now tells us that despite having frequently klaimed Christian
> cred in the past, he is not actually a Christian.

George, did he actually say this? Please show the link.

[George M. Middius]

Robert Morein said:

> > The kwestion of whether the Krooborg is a Christian has surfaced again.
> > Mr. **** now tells us that despite having frequently klaimed Christian
> > cred in the past, he is not actually a Christian.

> George, did he actually say this? Please show the link.

>



--
A day without Krooger is like a day without arsenic.

[Robert Morein]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> Robert Morein said:
>
>> > The kwestion of whether the Krooborg is a Christian has surfaced again.
>> > Mr. **** now tells us that despite having frequently klaimed Christian
>> > cred in the past, he is not actually a Christian.
>
>> George, did he actually say this? Please show the link.
>
> >
>
It's a "mailto", not a reference.
???

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: Robert Morein
Date: Sun, Apr 2 2006 11:29 pm
Email: "Robert Morein" >

>> >

>It's a "mailto", not a reference.
>???

You plug it into message ID in advanced groups search. Here:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/msg/c7e290831f8bdc92?hl=en

To be clear, Arny does not say that he is not a Christian, he just says
that he has never posted that he has any deeply-held religious beliefs.

He says that his Christianity has no religious component, just a
spiritual one. Even though he's an active member of a Baptist church,
and even though belief in Jesus Christ is a religious belief in itself.

Personally, I'd like to find out more about how he dices this to come
up with a belief in Jesus Christ that has no religious component to it.

Perhaps this is his version of proselytizing.

[Arny Krueger]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
wrote in message
oups.com
> From: Robert Morein
> Date: Sun, Apr 2 2006 11:29 pm
> Email: "Robert Morein" >
>
>>> >
>
>> It's a "mailto", not a reference.
>> ???

Yet another indication of Morien's cluelessness.

> You plug it into message ID in advanced groups search.
> Here:

> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/msg/c7e290831f8bdc92?hl=en

Basic google competence, well done!

> To be clear, Arny does not say that he is not a
> Christian,

So far so good, but note that Mr. Shhh! goes awry quickly.


> he just says that he has never posted that he
> has any deeply-held religious beliefs.

Huh?

Try quoting me, since you can't paraphrase worth a darn.

> He says that his Christianity has no religious component,
> just a spiritual one. Even though he's an active member
> of a Baptist church, and even though belief in Jesus
> Christ is a religious belief in itself.

Huh?

Try quoting me, since you can't paraphrase worth a darn.

> Personally, I'd like to find out more about how he dices
> this to come up with a belief in Jesus Christ that has no
> religious component to it.

Huh?

Try quoting me, since you can't paraphrase worth a darn.

> Perhaps this is his version of proselytizing.

Sad to say, there aren't a lot of people here who I would want to have be my
brother in Christ. For example, the idea of an eternity with Middius is very
repulsive to me, as it would be for any reasonable person. Good thing he's
such a dedicated atheist!

[George M. Middius]

Shhhh! said:

> Personally, I'd like to find out more about how he dices this to come
> up with a belief in Jesus Christ that has no religious component to it.
>
> Perhaps this is his version of proselytizing.

Could be. This is what happens when the Krooborg goes into full-tilt
"debating trade" mode while reading his Krooble. ;-)





--
A day without Krooger is like a day without arsenic.

[paul packer]

On 2 Apr 2006 22:03:47 -0700, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:


>Personally, I'd like to find out more about how he dices this to come
>up with a belief in Jesus Christ that has no religious component to it.
>

Actually that's not as difficult as you think. I have a belief in
Jesus Christ that has no religious component to it. A spiritual
component, yes. But religion and spirituality often have little to do
with each other.

[Jenn]

paul packer wrote:
> On 2 Apr 2006 22:03:47 -0700, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> > wrote:
>
>
> >Personally, I'd like to find out more about how he dices this to come
> >up with a belief in Jesus Christ that has no religious component to it.
> >
>
> Actually that's not as difficult as you think. I have a belief in
> Jesus Christ that has no religious component to it. A spiritual
> component, yes. But religion and spirituality often have little to do
> with each other.

Exactly.

[paul packer]

Jenn wrote:
> paul packer wrote:
> > On 2 Apr 2006 22:03:47 -0700, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >
> > >Personally, I'd like to find out more about how he dices this to come
> > >up with a belief in Jesus Christ that has no religious component to it.
> > >
> >
> > Actually that's not as difficult as you think. I have a belief in
> > Jesus Christ that has no religious component to it. A spiritual
> > component, yes. But religion and spirituality often have little to do
> > with each other.
>
> Exactly.

I wish you wouldn't ramble on so, Jenn. You're worse than Mr. Sound.
:-)

[Arny Krueger]

"paul packer" > wrote in message

> On 2 Apr 2006 22:03:47 -0700, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to
> Reason!" > wrote:
>
>
>> Personally, I'd like to find out more about how he dices
>> this to come up with a belief in Jesus Christ that has
>> no religious component to it.
>>
>
> Actually that's not as difficult as you think. I have a
> belief in Jesus Christ that has no religious component to
> it. A spiritual component, yes. But religion and
> spirituality often have little to do with each other.

They can be opposites.

[Jenn]

In article . com>,
"paul packer" > wrote:

> Jenn wrote:
> > paul packer wrote:
> > > On 2 Apr 2006 22:03:47 -0700, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > >Personally, I'd like to find out more about how he dices this to come
> > > >up with a belief in Jesus Christ that has no religious component to it.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Actually that's not as difficult as you think. I have a belief in
> > > Jesus Christ that has no religious component to it. A spiritual
> > > component, yes. But religion and spirituality often have little to do
> > > with each other.
> >
> > Exactly.
>
> I wish you wouldn't ramble on so, Jenn. You're worse than Mr. Sound.
> :-)

Sorry
;-)

[paul packer]

On Tue, 4 Apr 2006 07:21:49 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"paul packer" > wrote in message

>> On 2 Apr 2006 22:03:47 -0700, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to
>> Reason!" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Personally, I'd like to find out more about how he dices
>>> this to come up with a belief in Jesus Christ that has
>>> no religious component to it.
>>>
>>
>> Actually that's not as difficult as you think. I have a
>> belief in Jesus Christ that has no religious component to
>> it. A spiritual component, yes. But religion and
>> spirituality often have little to do with each other.
>
>They can be opposites.

Gee, Arnie, and here I thought we'd NEVER agree.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: paul packer - view profile
Date: Mon, Apr 3 2006 8:04 pm
Email: (paul packer)

> wrote:
>>Personally, I'd like to find out more about how he dices this to come
>>up with a belief in Jesus Christ that has no religious component to it.

>Actually that's not as difficult as you think. I have a belief in
>Jesus Christ that has no religious component to it. A spiritual
>component, yes. But religion and spirituality often have little to do
>with each other.

It is impossible to have a belief in Jesus Christ without a religious
component to it. Religion does not equal religious denominaion,
religious doctrine, or religious tenets. Simply because you do not
belong to an organized church, or a particuolar demonination, does not
mean that you are not religious.

Please note 1, 2 (personal), or 4 below:

re·li·gion (rÄ*-lÄ*j'É™n)
n.

1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded
as
creator and governor of the universe.
2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and
worship.
3. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
4. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a
spiritual leader.
5. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious
devotion.

[paul packer]

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
> From: paul packer - view profile
> Date: Mon, Apr 3 2006 8:04 pm
> Email: (paul packer)
>
> > wrote:
> >>Personally, I'd like to find out more about how he dices this to come
> >>up with a belief in Jesus Christ that has no religious component to it.
>
> >Actually that's not as difficult as you think. I have a belief in
> >Jesus Christ that has no religious component to it. A spiritual
> >component, yes. But religion and spirituality often have little to do
> >with each other.
>
> It is impossible to have a belief in Jesus Christ without a religious
> component to it. Religion does not equal religious denominaion,
> religious doctrine, or religious tenets. Simply because you do not
> belong to an organized church, or a particuolar demonination, does not
> mean that you are not religious.
>
> Please note 1, 2 (personal), or 4 below:
>
> re·li·gion (rÄ*-lÄ*j'É™n)
> n.
>
> 1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded
> as
> creator and governor of the universe.
> 2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and
> worship.
> 3. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
> 4. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a
> spiritual leader.
> 5. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious
> devotion.

Well, we knew what we meant, Mr. Shhhh! We didn't need a dictionary to
confuse things.

[Arny Krueger]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
wrote in message
oups.com
> From: paul packer - view profile
> Date: Mon, Apr 3 2006 8:04 pm
> Email: (paul packer)
>
>>> > wrote:
>>> Personally, I'd like to find out more about how he
>>> dices this to come up with a belief in Jesus Christ
>>> that has no religious component to it.
>
>> Actually that's not as difficult as you think. I have a
>> belief in Jesus Christ that has no religious component
>> to it. A spiritual component, yes. But religion and
>> spirituality often have little to do with each other.
>
> It is impossible to have a belief in Jesus Christ without
> a religious component to it.

Prove it.

> Religion does not equal
> religious denominaion, religious doctrine, or religious
> tenets.

True but irrelevant to the question at hand.

> Simply because you do not belong to an organized
> church, or a particuolar demonination, does not mean that
> you are not religious.

True but irrelevant to the question at hand.

> Please note 1, 2 (personal), or 4 below:
>
> re·li·gion (ri-lij'?n)
> n.

> 1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or
> powers regarded as
> creator and governor of the universe.
> 2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in
> such belief and worship.
> 3. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
> 4. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the
> teachings of a spiritual leader.
> 5. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or
> conscientious devotion.

Shhh! makes the usual kid's logical error - just because a religion may
involve a belief in a supernatural power, is everybody who believes in a
supernatural powers religious?

Note that not all religions involve belief in supernatural powers.

Also note that the word "supernatural" describes a moving target. Up until
the last century, most if not all of the things that electronics and nuclear
energy do would be considered to be beyond nature or in some sense
supernatural. Where is the limts to that which is "natural" written in
stone? Answer: no place in Science.

IOW, just because a cat is an animal, is every animal a cat?

Shhh! seems to want us to believe that since all cats are animals, all
animals are cats.

[Arny Krueger]

"paul packer" > wrote in message
ups.com
> Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
>> From: paul packer - view profile
>> Date: Mon, Apr 3 2006 8:04 pm
>> Email: (paul packer)
>>
>>>> > wrote:
>>>> Personally, I'd like to find out more about how he
>>>> dices this to come up with a belief in Jesus Christ
>>>> that has no religious component to it.
>>
>>> Actually that's not as difficult as you think. I have a
>>> belief in Jesus Christ that has no religious component
>>> to it. A spiritual component, yes. But religion and
>>> spirituality often have little to do with each other.
>>
>> It is impossible to have a belief in Jesus Christ
>> without a religious component to it. Religion does not
>> equal religious denominaion, religious doctrine, or
>> religious tenets. Simply because you do not belong to an
>> organized church, or a particuolar demonination, does
>> not mean that you are not religious.
>>
>> Please note 1, 2 (personal), or 4 below:
>>
>> re·li·gion (ri-lij'?n)
>> n.
>>
>> 1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or
>> powers regarded as
>> creator and governor of the universe.
>> 2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in
>> such belief and worship.
>> 3. The life or condition of a person in a religious
>> order.
>> 4. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the
>> teachings of a spiritual leader.
>> 5. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or
>> conscientious devotion.
>
> Well, we knew what we meant, Mr. Shhhh! We didn't need a
> dictionary to confuse things.

Seems like a jingoist approach. IOW Paul clearly doesn't know what he means,
but he knows that he doesn't mean when it's pointed out to him. ;-)

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: paul packer
Date: Wed, Apr 5 2006 6:05 am
Email: "paul packer" >

>Well, we knew what we meant, Mr. Shhhh! We didn't need a dictionary to
>confuse things.

LOL

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: paul packer
Date: Wed, Apr 5 2006 6:05 am
Email: "paul packer" >

>Well, we knew what we meant, Mr. Shhhh! We didn't need a dictionary to
>confuse things.

LOL

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: Arny Krueger
Date: Wed, Apr 5 2006 9:24 am
Email: "Arny Krueger" >

>Seems like a jingoist approach. IOW Paul clearly doesn't know what he means,
>but he knows that he doesn't mean when it's pointed out to him. ;-)

Is this 'Krooglish' that I keep hearing about even remotely related to
English?

Just curious.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: Arny Krueger
Date: Wed, Apr 5 2006 9:23 am
Email: "Arny Krueger" >

>"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >

>> From: paul packer

>>>> Personally, I'd like to find out more about how he
>>>> dices this to come up with a belief in Jesus Christ
>>>> that has no religious component to it.

>>> Actually that's not as difficult as you think. I have a
>>> belief in Jesus Christ that has no religious component
>>> to it. A spiritual component, yes. But religion and
>>> spirituality often have little to do with each other.

>> It is impossible to have a belief in Jesus Christ without
>> a religious component to it.

>Prove it.

Been there, done that. Asked and answered.

>> Religion does not equal
>> religious denominaion, religious doctrine, or religious
>> tenets.

>True but irrelevant to the question at hand.

Very relevant. You made a few claims: that you are not religious, that
your religious beliefs are not sacrosanct to you, that I do not know
the difference between religion and spirituality.

Two of three have been answered: you ARE religious, I DO know the
difference. Shall we go for a 1-2-3 inning? Or do you want to look up
what the word 'sacrosanct' means?

>> Simply because you do not belong to an organized
>> church, or a particuolar demonination, does not mean that
>> you are not religious.

>True but irrelevant to the question at hand.

See above.

>> Please note 1, 2 (personal), or 4 below:

>> re·li·gion (ri-lij'?n)
>> n.
>> 1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or
>> powers regarded as
>> creator and governor of the universe.
>> 2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in
>> such belief and worship.
>> 3. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
>> 4. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the
>> teachings of a spiritual leader.
>> 5. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or
>> conscientious devotion.

>Shhh! makes the usual kid's logical error - just because a religion may
>involve a belief in a supernatural power, is everybody who believes in a
>supernatural powers religious?

Yes. The logical error is yours. To be clear, I am speaking English. If
you are speaking some other language, please say so.

re·li·gious (rÄ*-lÄ*j'É™s)
adj.
Having or showing belief in and reverence for God or a deity.
Of, concerned with, or teaching religion: a religious text.
Extremely scrupulous or conscientious: religious devotion to duty.

>Note that not all religions involve belief in supernatural powers.

Note that Christianity does. Note that even if you don't believe that
Jesus Christ is supernatural, if you have "a set of beliefs, values,
and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader" you fit
the description.

>Also note that the word "supernatural" describes a moving target. Up until
>the last century, most if not all of the things that electronics and nuclear
>energy do would be considered to be beyond nature or in some sense
>supernatural. Where is the limts to that which is "natural" written in
>stone? Answer: no place in Science.

Nice try at obfusaction, unless you have an electronic God.

I am using the definition of supernatural used worldwide for centuries.

And where is it written in stone that the universe was created by an
all-powerful supernatural being? Answer: no place in science.

>IOW, just because a cat is an animal, is every animal a cat?

IOW, is a Christian a Christian?

>Shhh! seems to want us to believe that since all cats are animals, all
>animals are cats.

Another try at misdirection. I am saying that all Christians believe in
Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ and His Father are supernatural beings.
Christins tend to look to Jesus Christ as their spiritual leader.

Pretty basic, huh?

Why I'd think that even you could get that, Arny.

Now, shall we address the word 'sacrosanct' or can you look it up
yourself?

You're wrong, Arny. Just admit it and let's move on.

[George M. Middius]

Shhhh! said:

> You're wrong, Arny. Just admit it and let's move on.

Remember the line from "Prizzi's Honor" about Sicilians being, uh, very
reluctant to give up money? For Krooger, admitting he's wrong is on the
same level of aversion.





--
A day without Krooger is like a day without arsenic.

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
>>
>> It is impossible to have a belief in Jesus Christ without
>> a religious component to it.
>

So, the concept of "son of God"
has noth9ing to do with religion.
Maybe its just that he's your "favorite philosopher".



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: George M. Middius
Date: Wed, Apr 5 2006 3:42 pm
Email: George M. Middius <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast
[dot] net>

Shhhh! said:

>> You're wrong, Arny. Just admit it and let's move on.

>Remember the line from "Prizzi's Honor" about Sicilians being, uh, very
>reluctant to give up money? For Krooger, admitting he's wrong is on the
>same level of aversion.

Arny still has an out.

He may not be speaking English.

[Arny Krueger]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
wrote in message
oups.com
> From: Arny Krueger
> Date: Wed, Apr 5 2006 9:23 am
> Email: "Arny Krueger" >
>
>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
>
>>> From: paul packer
>
>>>>> Personally, I'd like to find out more about how he
>>>>> dices this to come up with a belief in Jesus Christ
>>>>> that has no religious component to it.
>
>>>> Actually that's not as difficult as you think. I have a
>>>> belief in Jesus Christ that has no religious component
>>>> to it. A spiritual component, yes. But religion and
>>>> spirituality often have little to do with each other.
>
>>> It is impossible to have a belief in Jesus Christ
>>> without a religious component to it.
>
>> Prove it.
>
> Been there, done that. Asked and answered.

Only in your dreams.

>>> Religion does not equal
>>> religious denominaion, religious doctrine, or religious
>>> tenets.

>> True but irrelevant to the question at hand.

> Very relevant.

Prove it.

> You made a few claims: that you are not religious,

Prove it.

> that your religious beliefs are not sacrosanct to you,

Agreed.

> that I do not know the difference between religion and spirituality.

Wrong - I only said that you showed the inability to make that distinction
reliably.

> Two of three have been answered: you ARE religious,

In some sense, perhaps.

> I DO know the difference.

You don't reliably behave that way.

> Shall we go for a 1-2-3 inning?

One out of three doesn't score.

> Or do you want to look up what the word 'sacrosanct' means?

Been there, done that.

>>> Simply because you do not belong to an organized
>>> church, or a particuolar demonination, does not mean
>>> that you are not religious.

>> True but irrelevant to the question at hand.

> See above.

You were wrong, above.

>>> Please note 1, 2 (personal), or 4 below:

>>> re·li·gion (ri-lij'?n)
>>> n.
>>> 1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or
>>> powers regarded as
>>> creator and governor of the universe.
>>> 2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in
>>> such belief and worship.
>>> 3. The life or condition of a person in a religious
>>> order.
>>> 4. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the
>>> teachings of a spiritual leader.
>>> 5. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or
>>> conscientious devotion.

>> Shhh! makes the usual kid's logical error - just because
>> a religion may involve a belief in a supernatural power,
>> is everybody who believes in a supernatural powers
>> religious?

> Yes.

A flash of insight?

> The logical error is yours.

No.

> To be clear, I am speaking English.

Doooh!

>If you are speaking some other language, please say so.

Red herring argument noted.

Note that Shhh! is giving us his idea of religious chant - where he chants
the defintion of various forms of the word religion over and over again:

> re·li·gious (ri-lij'?s)
> adj.
> Having or showing belief in and reverence for God or a
> deity.
> Of, concerned with, or teaching religion: a religious
> text.
> Extremely scrupulous or conscientious: religious devotion
> to duty.

>> Note that not all religions involve belief in
>> supernatural powers.

> Note that Christianity does.

Note continued confusion over what constitutes a supernatural power.

> Note that even if you don't
> believe that Jesus Christ is supernatural, if you have "a
> set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the
> teachings of a spiritual leader" you fit the description.

Note same problem - Shhh! is making the same mistake again. If a cat is a
black animal, then in his mind, all black animals are cats.

>> Also note that the word "supernatural" describes a
>> moving target. Up until the last century, most if not
>> all of the things that electronics and nuclear energy do
>> would be considered to be beyond nature or in some sense
>> supernatural. Where is the limts to that which is
>> "natural" written in stone? Answer: no place in
>> Science.

> Nice try at obfusaction, unless you have an electronic
> God.

My God is a god of electronics.

> I am using the definition of supernatural used worldwide
> for centuries.

Note obfuscation.

> And where is it written in stone that the universe was
> created by an all-powerful supernatural being? Answer: no
> place in science.

I guess you don't believe that the Big Bang theory is scientific?

>> IOW, just because a cat is an animal, is every animal a
>> cat?

> IOW, is a Christian a Christian?

Excluded middle argument noted.

>> Shhh! seems to want us to believe that since all cats
>> are animals, all animals are cats.

> Another try at misdirection.

Wrong - its an attempt to direct you towards insight.

> I am saying that all
> Christians believe in Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ and His
> Father are supernatural beings. Christians tend to look to
> Jesus Christ as their spiritual leader.

So close but apparently so far away!

> Pretty basic, huh?

Read what you write and try to understand it this time, if you can?

> Why I'd think that even you could get that, Arny.

I avoid errors pretty well.

> Now, shall we address the word 'sacrosanct' or can you
> look it up yourself?

I'll just wait for you to post it an abuse it like you've been abusing the
definitions of various froms of the word religion. ;-)

> You're wrong, Arny.

From time to time...

> Just admit it and let's move on.

Have you ever admitted on RAO that you were wrong?

I don't think so - correct me with a google reference if you can!


Ohhhh! Kryptonite!

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: Arny Krueger
Date: Thurs, Apr 6 2006 9:20 am
Email: "Arny Krueger" >

>> You made a few claims: that you are not religious,

>Prove it.

>> that your religious beliefs are not sacrosanct to you,

>Agreed.

>> that I do not know the difference between religion and spirituality.

>Wrong - I only said that you showed the inability to make that distinction
>reliably.
************************************************** **
From: Arny Krueger - view profile
Date: Fri, Mar 31 2006 8:31 pm
Email: "Arny Krueger" >

> Or is there another Arny Krueger who posted all those
> posts about his religious beliefs and church attendance
> and involvement here? (As I said, I do not care whether
> or not you are religious. But to say that I'm 'dreaming'
> when you have made many posts to the contrary is
> amazing...)
OK, so you can't tell the difference between religion and spirituality.

************************************************** ***********
I now have a better understanding what of 'Kroologic' 'Krooglish' and
your 'debating trade' entail.

The bottom line in all three is total dishonesty.

>Have you ever admitted on RAO that you were wrong?

Yes.

>I don't think so - correct me with a google reference if you can!

OK, I believe I will.

>Ohhhh! Kryptonite!

Is this a part of your Superman complex?
************************************************** ************************

From: Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
Date: Mon, Mar 27 2006 7:56 pm
Email: "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >

From: Steven Sullivan
Date: Mon, Mar 27 2006 12:41 pm
Email: Steven Sullivan >


>Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! > wrote:
>> From: Steven Sullivan
>> Date: Mon, Mar 27 2006 10:26 am
>> Email: Steven Sullivan >
>> >Wow....way to *work* that mirror!
>> Yes, dear. Only nob and Arny do nothing provocative, cast no insults,
>> or do not behave poorly.
>Wow...way to work that *imagination*.
>When you actually get the point of what I wrote, let me know.

Well, what you wrote can be read more than one way. I (of course) took
it as directed at me.

If that wasn't the intention, then I apologize.

From: Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! - view profile
Date: Tues, Feb 21 2006 12:26 am
Email: "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >

From: ScottW
Date: Mon, Feb 20 2006 4:14 pm
Email: "ScottW" >

>> Using your logic, this applies to Germany in WWII.
>Did we have provocation? I think Germany declared war
>first so I would say yes.

My point exactly: we were provoked. I'm talking unprovoked invasion, as

I have been all along. We didn't do it. I don't like the fact that we
now have.

Neither world war fits. Korea doesn't fit. Vietnam doesn't fit (even
with the Gulf of Tonkin ****ups we did not invade South Vietnam).
Strictly speaking, Grenada doesn't fit, although I am willing to give
you that one, and I was the one that reminded you of it. And I was
wrong: Panama actually *doesn't* fit:

************************************************** *****************

So you lie yet again.

You're a complete waste of time. Trying to have discussions with insane
people usually is.