Proof by LORD Almighty GOD: non-christians stand guilty of libel
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/725c5ad0b5167060?
May dear neighbors, friends, and brethren have a blessedly wonderful
upcoming 2009th year since the birth of our LORD Jesus Christ as our
Messiah, the Son of Man ...
... by being hungrier:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/f891e617d10bd689?
Hunger is wonderful ! ! !
It's how we know the answer to the question "What does Jesus
want?" (WDJW):
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/f43db72a7c5c1da0?
Yes, hunger is our knowledge of good versus evil that Adam and Eve
paid for with their and our immortal lives:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/52a3db8576495806?
"Blessed are you who hunger NOW...
... for you will be satisfied." -- LORD Jesus Christ (Luke 6:21)
Amen.
Here is a Spirit-guided exegesis of Luke 6:21 given in hopes of
promoting much greater understanding:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/cc2aa8f8a4d41360?
Be hungrier, which is truly healthier:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/991d4e30704307e7?
Marana tha
Prayerfully in the awesome name of our Messiah, LORD Jesus Christ,
Andrew <><
--
"... no one can say 'Jesus is LORD' except by the Holy Spirit." (1 Cor
12:3)
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/035c93540862751c?
What does Jesus want (WDJW) ?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/188fd2ec63b3ba63?
Cary Kittrell
> Behold in wide-eyed wonder and amazement:
Quoth the boy who just declared a poster on `sci.med.cardiology' to
be a homosexual, based on nothing at all.
Pot. Alabaster. Black.
-- cary
Truth
It's not libel when it's true.
Chung is unfit to practice medicine due to reasons of dishonesty,
mental illness and inablilty to practice medicine up to minimal
standards. Chung has no idea who is Christian and who is not. Chung
lies and suffers from delusions. Chung exhibits traits of narcisistic
personality disorder. Chung was fired from his first post-cardiology
fellowship job in Ocala, Fla in less than 3 months. Chung is not Board
Certified in Internal Medicine. Chung has no hospital privleges or
medical staff affiliation. Chung has no verifiable employment. Chung
lies about his 2PD Approach that began when he claimed that Everest
climbers ate that much per day and then morphed into his mistaken
claim that an omer is a measure of weight rather than volume. Chung
lies about having sold the domain name cardiology.com for 1 million
dollars.
See? All true statements. No libel.
But then...Chunks calls other posters Satan or homosexua or falsey
accuses them of lying if they challenge his statements. Hmmm.....
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>
> > Behold in wide-eyed wonder and amazement:
> >
>
> Quoth the boy who just declared a poster on `sci.med.cardiology' to
> be a homosexual, based on nothing at all.
Video evidence is hardly "nothing at all."
Moreover, there is nothing wrong with being homosexual because GOD
does not make mistakes. What remains wrong is sexual intercourse
outside of marriage:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/9a3bfe600eca0e99?
>
> Pot. Alabaster. Black.
Actually, in this case, it is the black pot recognizing that the
kettle is pink :-)
Truth is simple.
Cary Kittrell
> convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell wrote:
> > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> >
> > > Behold in wide-eyed wonder and amazement:
> > >
> > > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/725c5ad0b5167060?
> >
> > Quoth the boy who just declared a poster on `sci.med.cardiology' to
> > be a homosexual, based on nothing at all.
>
> Video evidence is hardly "nothing at all."
What "video evidence"? The dildo?
Did it ever occur that those of us who have women around may also
well have dildoes around -- for that very reason?
I'm guessing your personal experience in such matters is
rather shallow. Am I correct?
>
> Moreover, there is nothing wrong with being homosexual because GOD
> does not make mistakes.
And you think you could convince a jury of `Puberella's peers
that publicly declaring him "homosexual" based on the flimsiest of
"evidence" would not constitute libel? Think again.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> > convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell wrote:
> > > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> > >
> > > > Behold in wide-eyed wonder and amazement:
> > > >
> > > > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/725c5ad0b5167060?
> > >
> > > Quoth the boy who just declared a poster on `sci.med.cardiology' to
> > > be a homosexual, based on nothing at all.
> >
> > Video evidence is hardly "nothing at all."
>
> What "video evidence"?
The two videos that have been posted on YouTube where our neighbor
demonstrates a familiarity with dolls and dildoes.
Analogously, video evidence, as many folks should recall, was
sufficient to identify your Dr. Kevorkian as a murderer.
Thus, these videos have been sufficient to affirm what the Holy Spirit
has allowed me to know about the sexual orientation of our neighbor.
Cary Kittrell
> convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell wrote:
> > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> > > convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell wrote:
> > > > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Behold in wide-eyed wonder and amazement:
> > > > >
> > > > > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/725c5ad0b5167060?
> > > >
> > > > Quoth the boy who just declared a poster on `sci.med.cardiology' to
> > > > be a homosexual, based on nothing at all.
> > >
> > > Video evidence is hardly "nothing at all."
> >
> > What "video evidence"?
>
> The two videos that have been posted on YouTube where our neighbor
> demonstrates a familiarity with dolls and dildoes.
Oh, well CLEARLY that establishes that he's gay.
Or that there's a woman in the house. Or that he's
been pawing through his sister's dresser. Or that
he went out and acquired these items with the hopes
of being as disrespctful of your video as possible.
Or that he's Goth. Or that his attic looks like mine.
> Analogously, video evidence, as many folks should recall, was
> sufficient to identify your Dr. Kevorkian as a murderer.
Probably because it showed people dying after triggering
Kevorkian's device. Did you see a video of Puburella
shagging some boy, a video I somehow missed?
>
> Thus, these videos have been sufficient to affirm what the Holy Spirit
> has allowed me to know about the sexual orientation of our neighbor.
Sort of like the time you were "allowed to know" that my stomach
was rumbling, when in fact someone a mere twelve inches away -- that
would be me -- know that to be false?
Oh, by the way...you snip; I restore:
> Video evidence is hardly "nothing at all."
What "video evidence"? The dildo?
Did it ever occur that those of us who have women around may also
well have dildoes around -- for that very reason?
I'm guessing your personal experience in such matters is
rather shallow. Am I correct?
>
> Moreover, there is nothing wrong with being homosexual because GOD
> does not make mistakes.
And you think you could convince a jury of `Puberella's peers
that publicly declaring him "homosexual" based on the flimsiest of
"evidence" would not constitute libel? Think again.
-- cary
Anon
What is an Agnostic?
Bertrand Russell
What Is an agnostic?
An agnostic thinks it impossible to know the truth in matters such as
God
and the future life with which Christianity and other religions are
concerned. Or, if not impossible, at least impossible at the present
time.
Are agnostics atheists?
No. An atheist, like a Christian, holds that we can know whether or not
there is a God. The Christian holds that we can know there is a God; the
atheist, that we can know there is not. The Agnostic suspends judgment,
saying that there are not sufficient grounds either for affirmation or
for denial. At the same time, an Agnostic may hold that the existence of
God, though not impossible, is very improbable; he may even hold it so
improbable that it is not worth considering in practice. In that case,
he
is not far removed from atheism. His attitude may be that which a
careful
philosopher would have towards the gods of ancient Greece. If I were
asked to prove that Zeus and Poseidon and Hera and the rest of the
Olympians do not exist, I should be at a loss to find conclusive
arguments. An Agnostic may think the Christian God as improbable as the
Olympians; in that case, he is, for practical purposes, at one with the
atheists.
Since you deny `God's Law', what authority do you accept as a guide to
conduct?
An Agnostic does not accept any `authority' in the sense in which
religious people do. He holds that a man should think out questions of
conduct for himself. Of course, he will seek to profit by the wisdom of
others, but he will have to select for himself the people he is to
consider wise, and he will not regard even what they say as
unquestionable. He will observe that what passes as `God's law' varies
from time to time. The Bible says both that a woman must not marry her
deceased husband's brother, and that, in certain circumstances, she must
do so. If you have the misfortune to be a childless widow with an
unmarried brother-in-law, it is logically impossible for you to avoid
disobeying `God's law'.
How do you know what is good and what is evil? What does an agnostic
consider a sin?
The Agnostic is not quite so certain as some Christians are as to what
is
good and what is evil. He does not hold, as most Christians in the past
held, that people who disagree with the government on abstruse points of
theology ought to suffer a painful death. He is against persecution, and
rather chary of moral condemnation.
As for `sin', he thinks it not a useful notion. He admits, of course,
that some kinds of conduct are desirable and some undesirable, but he
holds that the punishment of undesirable kinds is only to be commended
when it is deterrent or reformatory, not when it is inflicted because it
is thought a good thing on its own account that the wicked should
suffer.
It was this belief in vindictive punishment that made men accept Hell.
This is part of the harm done by the notion of `sin'.
Does an agnostic do whatever he pleases?
In one sense, no; in another sense, everyone does whatever he pleases.
Suppose, for example, you hate someone so much that you would like to
murder him. Why do you not do so? You may reply: "Because religion tells
me that murder is a sin." But as a statistical fact, agnostics are not
more prone to murder than other people, in fact, rather less so. They
have the same motives for abstaining from murder as other people have.
Far and away the most powerful of these motives is the fear of
punishment. In lawless conditions, such as a gold rush, all sorts of
people will commit crimes, although in ordinary circumstances they would
have been law-abiding. There is not only actual legal punishment; there
is the discomfort of dreading discovery, and the loneliness of knowing
that, to avoid being hated, you must wear a mask with even your closest
intimates. And there is also what may be called "conscience": If you
ever
contemplated a murder, you would dread the horrible memory of your
victim's last moments or lifeless corpse. All this, it is true, depends
upon your living in a law-abiding community, but there are abundant
secular reasons for creating and preserving such a community.
I said that there is another sense in which every man does as he
pleases.
No one but a fool indulges every impulse, but what holds a desire in
check is always some other desire. A man's anti-social wishes may be
restrained by a wish to please God, but they may also be restrained by a
wish to please his friends, or to win the respect of his community, or
to
be able to contemplate himself without disgust. But if he has no such
wishes, the mere abstract concepts of morality will not keep him
straight.
How does an agnostic regard the Bible?
An agnostic regards the Bible exactly as enlightened clerics regard it.
He does not think that it is divinely inspired; he thinks its early
history legendary, and no more exactly true than that in Homer; he
thinks
its moral teaching sometimes good, but sometimes very bad. For example:
Samuel ordered Saul, in a war, to kill not only every man, woman, and
child of the enemy, but also all the sheep and cattle. Saul, however,
let
the sheep and the cattle live, and for this we are told to condemn him.
I
have never been able to admire Elisha for cursing the children who
laughed at him, or to believe (what the Bible asserts) that a benevolent
Deity would send two she-bears to kill the children.
How does an agnostic regard Jesus, the Virgin Birth, and the Holy
Trinity?
Since an agnostic does not believe in God, he cannot think that Jesus
was
God. Most agnostics admire the life and moral teachings of Jesus as told
in the Gospels, but not necessarily more than those of certain other
men.
Some would place him on a level with Buddha, some with Socrates and some
with Abraham Lincoln. Nor do they think that what He said is not open to
question, since they do not accept any authority as absolute.
They regard the Virgin Birth as a doctrine taken over from pagan
mythology, where such births were not uncommon. (Zoroaster was said to
have been born of a virgin; Ishtar, the Babylonian goddess, is called
the
Holy Virgin.) They cannot give credence to it, or to the doctrine of the
Trinity, since neither is possible without belief in God.
Can an agnostic be a Christian?
The word "Christian" has had various different meanings at different
times. Throughout most of the centuries since the time of Christ, it has
meant a person who believed God and immortality and held that Christ was
God. But Unitarians call themselves Christians, although they do not
believe in the divinity of Christ, and many people nowadays use the word
"God" in a much less precise sense than that which it used to bear. Many
people who say they believe in God no longer mean a person, or a trinity
of persons, but only a vague tendency or power or purpose immanent in
evolution. Others, going still further, mean by "Christianity" merely a
system of ethics which, since they are ignorant of history, they imagine
to be characteristic of Christians only.
When, in a recent book, I said that what the world needs is "love,
Christian love, or compassion," many people thought this showed some
changes in my views, although in fact, I might have said the same thing
at any time. If you mean by a "Christian" a man who loves his neighbor,
who has wide sympathy with suffering, and who ardently desires a world
freed from the cruelties and abominations which at present disfigure it,
then, certainly, you will be justified in calling me a Christian. And,
in
this sense, I think you will find more "Christians" among agnostics than
among the orthodox. But, for my part, I cannot accept such a definition.
Apart from other objections to it, it seems rude to Jews, Buddhists,
Mohammedans, and other non-Christians, who, so far as history shows,
have
been at least as apt as Christians to practice the virtues which some
modern Christians arrogantly claim as distinctive of their own religion.
I think also that all who called themselves Christians in an earlier
time, and a great majority of those who do so at the present day, would
consider that belief in God and immortality is essential to a Christian.
On these grounds, I should not call myself a Christian, and I should say
that an agnostic cannot be a Christian. But, if the word "Christianity"
comes to be generally used to mean merely a kind of morality, then it
will certainly be possible for an agnostic to be a Christian.
Does an agnostic deny that man has a soul?
This question has no precise meaning unless we are given a definition of
the word "soul." I suppose what is meant is, roughly, something
nonmaterial which persists throughout a person's life and even, for
those
who believe in immortality, throughout all future time. If this is what
is meant, an agnostic is not likely to believe that man has a soul. But
I
must hasten to add that this does not mean that an agnostic must be a
materialist. Many agnostics (including myself) are quite as doubtful of
the body as they are of the soul, but this is a long story taking one
into difficult metaphysics. Mind and matter alike, I should say, are
only
convenient symbols in discourse, not actually existing things.
Does an agnostic believe in a hereafter, in Heaven or Hell?
The question whether people survive death is one as to which evidence is
possible. Psychical research and spiritualism are thought by many to
supply such evidence. An agnostic, as such, does not take a view about
survival unless he thinks that there is evidence one way or the other.
For my part, I do not think there is any good reason to believe that we
survive death, but I am open to conviction if adequate evidence should
appear.
Heaven and hell are a different matter. Belief in hell is bound up with
the belief that the vindictive punishment of sin is a good thing, quite
independently of any reformative or deterrent effect that it may have.
Hardly an agnostic believes this. As for heaven, there might conceivably
someday be evidence of its existence through spiritualism, but most
agnostics do not think that there is such evidence, and therefore do not
believe in heaven.
Are you never afraid of God's judgment in denying Him?
Most certainly not. I also deny Zeus and Jupiter and Odin and Brahma,
but
this causes me no qualms. I observe that a very large portion of the
human race does not believe in God and suffers no visible punishment in
consequence. And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He
would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt
His
existence.
How do agnostics explain the beauty and harmony of nature?
I do not understand where this "beauty" and "harmony" are supposed to be
found. Throughout the animal kingdom, animals ruthlessly prey upon each
other. Most of them are either cruelly killed by other animals or slowly
die of hunger. For my part, I am unable to see any great beauty or
harmony in the tapeworm. Let it not be said that this creature is sent
as
a punishment for our sins, for it is more prevalent among animals than
among humans. I suppose the questioner is thinking of such things as the
beauty of the starry heavens. But one should remember that stars every
now and again explode and reduce everything in their neighborhood to a
vague mist. Beauty, in any case, is subjective and exists only in the
eye
of the beholder.
How do agnostics explain miracles and other revelations of God's
omnipotence?
Agnostics do not think that there is any evidence of "miracles" in the
sense of happenings contrary to natural law. We know that faith healing
occurs and is in no sense miraculous. At Lourdes, certain diseases can
be
cured and others cannot. Those that can be cured at Lourdes can probably
be cured by any doctor in whom the patient has faith. As for the records
of other miracles, such as Joshua commanding the sun to stand still, the
agnostic dismisses them as legends and points to the fact that all
religions are plentifully supplied with such legends. There is just as
much miraculous evidence for the Greek gods in Homer as for the
Christian
God in the Bible.
There have been base and cruel passions, which religion opposes. If you
abandon religious principles, could mankind exist?
The existence of base and cruel passions is undeniable, but I find no
evidence in history that religion has opposed these passions. On the
contrary, it has sanctified them, and enabled people to indulge them
without remorse. Cruel persecutions have been commoner in Christendom
than anywhere else. What appears to justify persecution is dogmatic
belief. Kindliness and tolerance only prevail in proportion as dogmatic
belief decays. In our day, a new dogmatic religion, namely, communism,
has arisen. To this, as to other systems of dogma, the agnostic is
opposed. The persecuting character of present day communism is exactly
like the persecuting character of Christianity in earlier centuries. In
so far as Christianity has become less persecuting, this is mainly due
to
the work of freethinkers who have made dogmatists rather less dogmatic.
If they were as dogmatic now as in former times, they would still think
it right to burn heretics at the stake. The spirit of tolerance which
some modern Christians regard as essentially Christian is, in fact, a
product of the temper which allows doubt and is suspicious of absolute
certainties. I think that anybody who surveys past history in an
impartial manner will be driven to the conclusion that religion has
caused more suffering than it has prevented.
What is the meaning of life to the agnostic?
I feel inclined to answer by another question: What is the meaning of
`the meaning of life'? I suppose what is intended is some general
purpose. I do not think that life in general has any purpose. It just
happened. But individual human beings have purposes, and there is
nothing
in agnosticism to cause them to abandon these purposes. They cannot, of
course, be certain of achieving the results at which they aim; but you
would think ill of a soldier who refused to fight unless victory was
certain. The person who needs religion to bolster up his own purposes is
a timorous person, and I cannot think as well of him as of the man who
takes his chances, while admitting that defeat is not impossible.
Does not the denial of religion mean the denial of marriage and chastity?
Here again, one must reply by another question: Does the man who asks
this question believe that marriage and chastity contribute to earthly
happiness here below, or does he think that, while they cause misery
here
below, they are to be advocated as means of getting to heaven? The man
who takes the latter view will no doubt expect agnosticism to lead to a
decay of what he calls virtue, but he will have to admit that what he
calls virtue is not what ministers to the happiness of the human race
while on earth. If, on the other hand, he takes the former view, namely,
that there are terrestrial arguments in favor of marriage and chastity,
he must also hold that these arguments are such as should appeal to the
agnostic. Agnostics, as such, have no distinctive views about sexual
morality. But most of them would admit that there are valid arguments
against the unbridled indulgence of sexual desires. They would derive
these arguments, however, from terrestrial sources and not from supposed
divine commands.
Is not faith in reason alone a dangerous creed? Is not reason imperfect
and inadequate without spiritual and moral law?
No sensible man, however agnostic, has "faith in reason alone." Reason
is
concerned with matters of fact, some observed, some inferred. The
question whether there is a future life and the question whether there
is
a God concern matters of fact, and the agnostic will hold that they
should be investigated in the same way as the question, "Will there be
an
eclipse of the moon tomorrow?" But matters of fact alone are not
sufficient to determine action, since they do not tell us what ends we
ought to pursue. In the realm of ends, we need something other than
reason. The agnostic will find his ends in his own heart and not in an
external command. Let us take an illustration: Suppose you wish to
travel
by train from New York to Chicago; you will use reason to discover when
the trains run, and a person who though that there was some faculty of
insight or intuition enabling him to dispense with the timetable would
be
thought rather silly. But no timetable will tell him that it is wise, he
will have to take account of further matters of fact; but behind all the
matters of fact, there will be the ends that he thinks fitting to
pursue,
and these, for an agnostic as for other men, belong to a realm which is
not that of reason, though it should be in no degree contrary to it. The
realm I mean is that of emotion and feeling and desire.
Do you regard all religions as forms of superstition or dogma? Which of
the existing religions do you most respect, and why?
All the great organized religions that have dominated large populations
have involved a greater or less amount of dogma, but "religion" is a
word
of which the meaning is not very definite. Confucianism, for instance,
might be called a religion, although it involves no dogma. And in some
forms of liberal Christianity, the element of dogma is reduced to a
minimum.
Of the great religions of history, I prefer Buddhism, especially in its
earliest forms, because it has had the smallest element of persecution.
Communism like agnosticism opposes religion, are agnostics Communists?
Communism does not oppose religion. It merely opposes the Christian
religion, just as Mohammedanism does. Communism, at least in the form
advocated by the Soviet Government and the Communist Party, is a new
system of dogma of a peculiarly virulent and persecuting sort. Every
genuine Agnostic must therefore be opposed to it.
Do agnostics think that science and religion are impossible to reconcile?
The answer turns upon what is meant by `religion'. If it means merely a
system of ethics, it can be reconciled with science. If it means a
system
of dogma, regarded as unquestionably true, it is incompatible with the
scientific spirit, which refuses to accept matters of fact without
evidence, and also holds that complete certainty is hardly ever
impossible.
What kind of evidence could convince you that God exists?
I think that if I heard a voice from the sky predicting all that was
going to happen to me during the next twenty-four hours, including
events
that would have seemed highly improbable, and if all these events then
produced to happen, I might perhaps be convinced at least of the
existence of some superhuman intelligence. I can imagine other evidence
of the same sort which might convince me, but so far as I know, no such
evidence exists.
--
"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of
human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still
primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."
- Albert Einstein
Anon
Anon
dolf
Here I said, "That it is possible for a Chinese national with their
DAOIST belief to be considered AGNOSTIC but included in God's
Everlasting Covenant"
Just letting people know that Anon <hat...@the.lie.com> isn't being
intellectually honest.
An example of the modus operandi as religious evangelism and dishonesty
by Americans during warfare against religious immodesty is available at
this URL:
- www.grapple.id.au/Chronicles/adversaries.html
This discourse utilizes characters from the Skeptics Society to place
these American religious comments into a proper context.
- dolf
- http://www.grapple.id.au/vCube.html
However the Scriptures say: "For the wrath of God is revealed from
heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress
the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is
manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.
For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes are clearly
seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal
power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although
they knew God, they did not glorify him as God, nor were they thankful,
but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the
incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man--and birds and
four footed and creeping things." [Romans 1:18-23]
That the Apostle Paul's concerns are over the consequence of deviating
from the Oracles of God [Romans 3:2] as 10 Commandments which are
principles that are accessible to human reasoning and wisdom, but
rendered foolish by human action.
There is a chronological and kabbalistic basis to that view of the
law as governance, which by human action (ie. the adoption of the
autonomic transformative prototype as marriage under the Roman Caesars
who engaged in sodomizing neptotism (paedophilia) and the Julian
calendar) caused Israel to wander into a trackless wasteland: "You who
make your boast in the law, do you dishonour God through breaking the
law? For the Name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of
you, as it is written." [Romans 2:23-24; Isaiah 52:5; Ezekiel 36:22]
That this unbelief to which God has committed them all in disobedience
[Romans 11:32] was to continue until God in his mercy grafted the Jews
back in again--Which he has done [Romans 11:17-32]
- which contains the command to behave in accordance with the
law, that is, the principle of subsumption under the law: x 49 = 6J or
294 x 364 days or 365.2425 x 293 years - Vernal Equinox Wednesday 20
March 1996 / 21 March = 1 Nisan 5756
- which contains the verdict (sentence), that is laid down as right in
the case at hand: ... 6,000 topical years as Telos ('achariyth as
122J3W1D) = Arch (re'shiyth as 3W1D) + c² [9(9²+1)/2] has #369 with
Septet #41 centric on 13-17 September 2001 / 18 September = 1 Tishri 5762.
I've repeated this post because of the lack of integrity with the former
participants in this discussion.
The determination of Judaeo-Christian Identity and Autonomic Sovereign
claim as natural / common law based governance as it relates to the
topical year length can be determined in 293 years--If you do the math
in relation to the 7 x 24 x 13 as 6D = 2184 days of the 'OTH cycle of
the Everlasting Covenant known from at least 50J (circa 2458) / 1342 BCE.
This transcends the Gregorian Calendar 400 year determination and is an
essential point of proof with respect to principles of natural and
common law governance associated to sovereign / autonomous
entity--countries or robots or telephones.
The entire premise of the Dead Sea Scrolls that the 6th year of the 'OTH
cycle relating to the 22nd course of GAMUL is involved with a reprise of
the GENESIS PRINCIPLE and its INCEPTION DATE AS ZERO.
6,000 topical years as Telos ('achariyth as 122J3W1D) = Arch (re'shiyth
as 3W1D) + c² [9(9²+1)/2]
Do the math in relation to the 7 x 24 x 13 as 6D = 2184 days of the 'OTH
cycle of the Everlasting Covenant known from at least 50J (circa 2458) /
1342 BCE.
JUST A CLUE AS ADVANCE on KEPLER's 3 LAWS (the 3rd was used to determine
the astronomical unit in 3 June 1769 transit of Venus by Captain Cook)...
The HRUMACHIS cycle begins from the new moon cycle of the Equinox of 21
March (the last example of this phenomena was 1996).
And that at the other end of the EQUINOX Cycle (if you're clever:
@DATE(1996,3,20) + 5 * 364 + 182 or 91 x 22 = 12 September 2001) you can
effect a cypher change with the 22 elements of the stoicheion (vCyan and
vCoral on #369 on 17 Sept with new moon commencing 18 September) at this
ZERO point in the interstitial space!
6D = 2184 (6 x 364) days; 6D x 7; 6D x 49 (J) = 294 x 364 or 293 x
365.2425 days.
cipher |ˈsīfər| (also cypher)
noun
1 a secret or disguised way of writing; a code : he was writing cryptic
notes in a cipher | the information may be given in cipher.
• a thing written in such a code.
• a key to such a code.
2 dated a zero; a figure 0.
• figurative a person or thing of no importance, esp. a person who does
the bidding of others and seems to have no will of their own.
3 a monogram.
4 a continuous sounding of an organ pipe, caused by a mechanical defect.
verb
1 [ trans. ] put (a message) into secret writing; encode.
2 [ intrans. ] archaic do arithmetic.
ORIGIN late Middle English (in the senses [symbol for zero] and [Arabic
numeral] ): from Old French cifre, based on Arabic ṣifr ‘zero.’ Sense 4
is perhaps a different word.
The determination of the topical year length in 293 years transcends the
Gregorian Calendar 400 year determination and is an essential point of
proof with respect to principles of natural and common law governance
associated to sovereign / autonomous entity--countries or robots or
telephones.
Within Jewish and Christian theology the concept of
'rudiments-STOICHEION of the world-KOSMOS', has a relationship to the
'first-ARCHE principles-STOICHEION of the oracles-LOGION {ie. the 10
Commandments [Romans 3:1-2]} of God-THEOS" [Hebrews 5:12-14] and the
"forgivennes of these trespasses" as the "blotting out of them as
handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to
us," whereupon Jesus of Nazareth "took it out of the way, nailing it to
his cross; And having spoiled principalities-ARCHE and powers-EXOUSIA,
he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it." [Colossians
2:13-23]
With the cypher change associated to the HRUMACHIS (#330) cycle that can
be shown to be true.
baba wrote:
> 2000 Miles
>
> by: The Pretenders
>
> He's gone 2000 miles, it's very far.
> The snow is falling down, gets colder day by day, I miss you.
> The children will sing, he'll be back at Christmas time.
>
> In these frozen and silent nights, sometimes in a dream you appear.
> Outside under the purple sky, diamonds in the snow sparkle.
> Our hearts were singing, it felt like Christmas time.
>
> 2000 miles is very far through the snow. I'll think of you wherever
> you go.
>
> He's gone 2000 miles, it's very far.
> The snow is falling down, gets colder day by day, I miss you.
> I can hear people singing, it must be Christmas time.
> I can hear people singing, it must be Christmas time.
>
I said previously "To claim a belief in God apart from his being known
by the 'oth cycle of the Everlasting Covenant as elapse of 7 days in the
cosmology detailed below--is a lie!"
That essential point of proof about the existence of God as being
involves an extrapolation of the function and role of the 7 day cycle as
the temporal's relationship to the Infinite:
The 72 element sacred tetragrammation name of God associated with the
cosmological HRUMACHIS (22/7) cycle : 6D = 2184 days of the 'OTH cycle
of the Everlasting Covenant; 6D = 2184 (6 x 364) days; 6D x 7; 6D x 49
(J) = 294 x 364 or 293 x 365.2425 days. Known from at least 50J (circa
2458) / 1342 BCE.
That discussion of the Trinitarian existence of God requires an
understanding of the Ternary nature of its consciousness in relation to
that created cosmology and this applies equally to convergence and
transformation of hypostatic equilibrium models.
holy...@wondering.com wrote:
> In a word, no. There is nothing in Quantum Mechanics which leads by
logic and evidence to God, nor against Him.
>
> We accept God by faith alone in an accepted revelation not as the
product of a well executed chain of logic, nor reject Him for same.
>
> Once by faith we accept Him, we can then see in nature a revelation of
> his works but we can not logically from nature validly "proove" Him.
>
> I have seen other attempts to make religious conclusions of Quantum
> Mechanics. These have been of the eastern religious variety such as
> buddhism because of the nature of reality, or nonreality it proposes.
Will all of you now run out and become buddhist?
>
> Christians should stop wanting and inventing "scientific theology", it
> is by faith alone and science neither speaks to or against the divine.
In order for there to be a conceptual knowledge of God which occurs
experientially, then God's eternal being must be able to express itself
ever anew in history in God's act. When knowledge of God does occur it
is because the first two movements--primordial grounding and present
encounter--have come to fruition in subjective effect. Or to put to it
the other way around, God is in God's historic revelation as God is in
God's self-being eternally. God reproduces God's being in the world as a
history.
To encounter an act of God is to encounter God's own identity as made
known in time. It might help to translate this rather abstract language
of 'Being' into the language of character or personality. [Johnson,
Mystery of God - Karl Barth & the Post Modern Foundations of Theology
1997:45]
Respected scholars at the Han court had argued on the basis that time
was regular, it was amenable to human comprehension. As numerous
contemporary references to magicians, astrologers, and diviners attest,
many had hoped to predict and manipulate the future through the
technical arts of portent reading and numerology: "The Mystery of which
we speak in hidden places, as dazzling light from the infinite and fiery
brilliance out of the boundless unfolds (li or chang: 'to expand') the
myriad species (categories) from the primordial chaos as the holding
place for Being, without revealing a form of its own:
22/7 as 3W1D ... {Formula of Progression of individual phenomena}
the major premise {YANG/FATHER/HEAVEN/MALE/FORM - Formula of Universal
Law}, which contains the law of that will: 7 x 24 x 13 = 2184 days of
the 'oth cycle = 6D or 6 x 364 associated to the 'constant sequence of
sun and moon' as 354 x 3 + 30 day intercalation = 1092 days x 2 = 2184 days
the minor premise {YIN/MOTHER/EARTH/FEMALE/MATTER - Formula of
Humanity}, which contains the command to behave in accordance with the
law, that is, the principle of subsumption under the law: x 49 = 6J or
294 x 364 days or 365.2425 x 293 years - Vernal Equinox Wednesday 20
March 1996 / 21 March = 1 Nisan 5756; and
the conclusion {ZHUN/SON/SEA/ENUMERATE/OFFSPRING - Formula of Autonomy},
which contains the verdict (sentence), that is laid down as right in the
case at hand: ... 6,000 topical years as Telos ('achariyth as 122J3W1D)
= Arch (re'shiyth as 3W1D) + c² [9(9²+1)/2] has #369 with Septet #41
centric on 13-17 September 2001 / 18 September = 1 Tishri 5762.
By which God says: "And I will sanctify my great name, which was
profaned among the heathen, which ye have profaned in the midst of them;
and the heathen shall know that I am the LORD, saith the Lord GOD, when
I shall be sanctified in you before their eyes.
For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all
countries, and will bring you into your own land.
And I will put my spirit (evidently the same spirit involved with
creation [Genesis 1:1-4]) within you, and cause you to walk in my
statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them." [Ezekiel 36:23,
24, 27 (KJV)]
+ 0, 27, 54 {ie. Realm of its Nature as Heaven - Formula of Universal Law}
REMEMBER THE SABBATH
+ 0, 9, 18 {ie. System's Cosmology as Earth - Formula of Humanity}
HONOUR PARENTS (MOTHER LETTER: #SHIN)
+ 0, 3, 6 {ie. Self identity - Formula of Autonomy}
DO NOT MURDER
+ 1, 2, 3 {ie. Formula of Progression of individual phenomena (Wan Wu)}
AVOID HETERONOMY AGAINST AUTONOMY (INCOMMENSURATE DYNAMICS)
= Tetragrammation hierarchy value as NUMBER.
+ 0, 81, 9(9²+1)/2 = #369 {ie. Organisation of the myriad or number of
things}
DO NOT STEAL (DISCRIMINATING NORM: 72J + 3(3²+1)/2 = 457 BCE)
- http://www.grapple.id.au/Chronicles/images/enneadgrapple.gif
DO NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS (OBLIGATING NORM: MARRIAGE OATHS (MOTHER
LETTER: #MEM))
#4000 MOD 22 = 16 [#'AYIN / #70] = #0 CE as HETEROS autonomic
transformative prototype and symbolic associator to series #15, #34,
#65, #111, #175, #260, #369 ... #2000 Y2K
#6000 MOD 22 = 13 [#MEM / #40] = #2000 Y2K / Equinox of DATE(1996,3,20)
/ @ (21 March = 1 Nisan) + (5 * 364) + 182 days = Wednesday
DATE(2001,9,12) with Equinox of Saturday DATE(2001,9,23) commencing the
Sabbath year of 'oth cycle has #369 with Septet #41 centric on 13-17
September 2001 / @ 18 September = 1 Tishri 5762.
- http://www.grapple.id.au/Chronicles/images/toth9.gif
Telos ('achariyth as 122J3W1D or 6,000 topical years) = Arch (re'shiyth
as 3W1D) + c² [9(9²+1)/2]
DO NOT COVET (MANIFESTING NORM: (MOTHER LETTER: #ALEPH))
- http://www.grapple.id.au/Chronicles/images/sept112001.gif
- http://www.grapple.id.au/Chronicles/images/hyponomia.png
It fashions the stuff of (ie. gives birth to and nourishes) Emptiness
and Formlessness (of the primordial chaos), giving birth to the
regulations (ie. the circular motion of the sun). Tied to the gods in
Heaven and the spirits on Earth, it fixes the models (mo: numbers or
shu: calculations). It pervades and assimilates past and present,
originating the categories. It unfolds and intersperses yin and yang,
generating the chi'i (as the vitality which informs the entire cosmos
and binds all humans to the rest of phenomena)." [Nylan, Hsuan Li
(Evolution of the Mystery), Canon of Supreme Mystery 1993:429, 64]
A variation of the 22/7 {= 3.1428571...} equation as rational PI
computation and the 364 day cycle from the DATE(1996,3,20) + (5 * 364) +
182 days = Wednesday DATE(2001,9,12) gives the Equinox of Saturday
DATE(2001,9,23) as commencing the Sabbath year and the reprise
associated to the following schema as a transcendent negation of the
Gregorian cycle of 400 years as the basis for replacement theology,
which is as 146097 days evenly divisible by seven:
#0 MOD 22 = 22 [#TAU / #400] as 4000 BCE
#400 MOD 22 = 17 [#PE / #80]
#800 MOD 22 = 12 [#LAMED / #30]
#1200 MOD 22 = 7 [#ZAYIN / #7]
#1600 MOD 22 = 2 [#BETH / #2]
#2000 MOD 22 = 19 [#QOPH / #100]
#2400 MOD 22 = 14 [#NUN / #50]
#2800 MOD 22 = 9 [#TETH / #9]
#3200 MOD 22 = 4 [#DALETH / #4]
#3600 MOD 22 = 21 [#SHIN / #300]
#4000 MOD 22 = 16 [#'AYIN / #70] = #0 CE as HETEROS autonomic
transformative prototype and symbolic associator to series #15, #34,
#65, #111, #175, #260, #369 ... #2000 Y2K
#4400 MOD 22 = 11 [#KAF / #20] = #400 CE
#4800 MOD 22 = 6 [#VAV / #6] = #800 CE
#5200 MOD 22 = 1 [#ALEPH / #1] = #1200 CE
#5600 MOD 22 = 18 [#TSADE / #90] = #1600 CE
#6000 MOD 22 = 13 [#MEM / #40] = #2000 Y2K / Equinox of DATE(1996,3,20)
/ @ (21 March = 1 Nisan) + (5 * 364) + 182 days = Wednesday
DATE(2001,9,12) with Equinox of Saturday DATE(2001,9,23) commencing the
Sabbath year of 'oth cycle has #369 with Septet #41 centric on 13-17
September 2001 / @ 18 September = 1 Tishri 5762.
- http://www.grapple.id.au/Chronicles/images/toth9.gif
Telos ('achariyth as 122J3W1D or 6,000 topical years) = Arch (re'shiyth
as 3W1D) + c² [9(9²+1)/2]
#6400 MOD 22 = 8 [#CHET / #8]
#6800 MOD 22 = 3 [#GIMEL / #3]
#7200 MOD 22 = 20 [#RESH / #200]
#7600 MOD 22 = 15 [#SAMEK / #60]
#8000 MOD 22 = 10 [#YOD / #10]
#8400 MOD 22 = 5 [#HE / #5]
#8800 MOD 22 = 22 [#TAU / #400] as 8800 CE
"I have been following the creationist/Intelligent Design attempts for
over twenty years, wanting for them to come up with a plausible
description of how the natural world came into order. Sadly they have
only given false hope to hundreds of thousands by ignoring or, sadly,
distorting the work of thousands of scientists as if there was a massive
conspiracy on their part. Ignorance is forgivable, but willful ignorance
is shameful. How Brendan Nelson [as Minister for Education] can give
such a flacid response to the question of Intelligent Design being
taught in schools is difficult to fathom. By leaving it up to misled
parents to decide what is taught in science classes opens the way for a
range of unfounded assertions to be taught. There is plenty of scope to
teach a range of creation scenarios, but not as a science subject.
The church trying to conform to the Enlightenment, com[es] off second
best. A spiritual understanding of our place in the universe is crippled
by focusing on the material." [Zytheran (Nigel Dobson-Keeffe),
"Intelligent design - damaging good science and good theology", 2049 hrs
12 September 2005]
The Chinese Mystery in grand fashion comprising Heaven's Origin, finds a
norm in the constant sequence of the sun and moon, and in the order of
male and female and makes them the canonical model for all
eternity--Their revolutions with regard to the Seven Regulators (sun,
moon and 5 visible planets) [Deuteronomy 4:15-20] associated to zodiac
and astrological examinations for patterns of the Dragon and Tiger
(eastern and western quadrant constellations) and contemplation of the
lines of the Bird and Turtle (southern and northern quadrant
constellations). Has its instigation within a 60 year cycle as CHIA TZU
year as established on the 1st day of the new moon commencing with
midnight on the winter solstice of 104 BCE: 'Looking up to contemplate
the starry images, looking down to view earthly conditions, the sage
examines human nature and comes to know the Decree. He seeks the origin
of beginnings and sees the final outcome.' [Hsuan Li (Evolution of the
Mystery)]
Their concern as men of their time was the ultimate issue in
understanding change: how does all this infinite diversity of natural
mutation in Nature, society, and the human psyche arise from the Way,
which rests in Mystery and does not change at all? What obscure paths do
the Tao's "spiritual forces" (shen) travel to keep the cycles turning?
The Han experts were reexamining the symbolic notation of the 'I-Ching'
to find regularities. They were not merely trying to narrow down the
objective significance, even what they believed to be the objective
moral significance, of the symbols. Their goal was a universal nexus of
association and correlation, extending the meanings of traditional
symbols to create an infinitely rich language they could use to relate
everything that people observe, think, feel, contemplate, and imagine.
What they valued in this vocabulary was scope, not rigorous definition.
They did not see themselves as widening the ambit of the Changes, but as
coming to grips with the universality that the Sages had given it. Their
demonstration that endless wisdom was stored in the symbols of the
Changes confirmed its status in the canon whose transmission was
sponsored by, and in turn lent legitimacy to, the dynastic house of Han.
[Michael Nylan, Nathan Sivin, 1987 Essay on Canon of Supreme Mystery]
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> > convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell wrote:
> > > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> > > > convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell wrote:
> > > > > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Behold in wide-eyed wonder and amazement:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/725c5ad0b5167060?
> > > > >
> > > > > Quoth the boy who just declared a poster on `sci.med.cardiology' to
> > > > > be a homosexual, based on nothing at all.
> > > >
> > > > Video evidence is hardly "nothing at all."
> > >
> > > What "video evidence"?
> >
> > The two videos that have been posted on YouTube where our neighbor
> > demonstrates a familiarity with dolls and dildoes.
>
> Oh, well CLEARLY that establishes that he's gay.
It remains evidence that is much more than "nothing at all."
Additional evidence is Puberella's reaction to being informed that he
is homosexual:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.christnet.christianlife/msg/bf65ae61f3b3d808?
Simply note that he did not deny it outright but instead attempted
feebly to cover-up by distancing himself from his own video evidence
that he had just gleefully presented only a couple of days earlier on
12/11/08:
"No signs of homosexuality in the material you referenced." --
Puberella (12/13/08)
Bottom line:
A man publicly playing with dolls and dildoes in a joyful (i.e. gay)
manner is a big sign of homosexuality.
Truth is simple.
Cary Kittrell
> convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell wrote:
> > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> > > convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell wrote:
> > > > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> > > > > convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell wrote:
> > > > > > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Behold in wide-eyed wonder and amazement:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/725c5ad0b5167060?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Quoth the boy who just declared a poster on `sci.med.cardiology' to
> > > > > > be a homosexual, based on nothing at all.
> > > > >
> > > > > Video evidence is hardly "nothing at all."
> > > >
> > > > What "video evidence"?
> > >
> > > The two videos that have been posted on YouTube where our neighbor
> > > demonstrates a familiarity with dolls and dildoes.
> >
> > Oh, well CLEARLY that establishes that he's gay.
You snip; I restore, OK? I thought we'd been through this
already.
\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=
> The two videos that have been posted on YouTube where our neighbor
> demonstrates a familiarity with dolls and dildoes.
Oh, well CLEARLY that establishes that he's gay.
Or that there's a woman in the house. Or that he's
been pawing through his sister's dresser. Or that
he went out and acquired these items with the hopes
of being as disrespctful of your video as possible.
Or that he's Goth. Or that his attic looks like mine.
> Analogously, video evidence, as many folks should recall, was
> sufficient to identify your Dr. Kevorkian as a murderer.
Probably because it showed people dying after triggering
Kevorkian's device. Did you see a video of Puburella
shagging some boy, a video I somehow missed?
>
> Thus, these videos have been sufficient to affirm what the Holy Spirit
> has allowed me to know about the sexual orientation of our neighbor.
Sort of like the time you were "allowed to know" that my stomach
was rumbling, when in fact someone a mere twelve inches away -- that
would be me -- know that to be false?
Oh, by the way...you snip; I restore:
> Video evidence is hardly "nothing at all."
What "video evidence"? The dildo?
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> >
>
> You snip; I restore, OK?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/43acbc5ea248ceee?
> I thought we'd been through this already.
Your not being able to publicly say "Jesus is LORD" remains a serious
matter.
Cary Kittrell
> convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell wrote:
> > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> > >
> > > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/6fa2ab56007d724e?
> >
> > You snip; I restore, OK?
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/43acbc5ea248ceee?
>
> > I thought we'd been through this already.
>
> Yo
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
>Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> > convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell wrote:
> > > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> > > >
> > > > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/6fa2ab56007d724e?
> > >
> > > You snip; I restore, OK?
> >
> > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/43acbc5ea248ceee?
> >
> > > I thought we'd been through this already.
Many thanks, much praise, and all the glory to GOD for His compelling
you to unwittingly update folks on you being unable to publicly say
"Jesus is LORD."
Anon
What Is an agnostic?
Are agnostics atheists?
--
Anon
Anon
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
jayp...@gmail.com
wrote:
> convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell wrote:
>
> > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>
> > > Â http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/6fa2ab56007d724e?
>
> > You snip; I restore, OK?
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/43acbc5ea248ceee?
>
> > I thought we'd been through this already.
>
> Your not being able to publicly say "Jesus is LORD" remains a serious
> matter.
>
> <><
>
> "... no one can say 'Jesus is LORD' except by the Holy Spirit." (1 Cor
> 12:3)
Can come up with something intelligent to answer, moron?
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> > convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell wrote:
> > > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> >
> > > > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/6fa2ab56007d724e?
> >
> > > You snip; I restore, OK?
> >
> > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/43acbc5ea248ceee?
> >
> > > I thought we'd been through this already.
> >
> > Your not being able to publicly say "Jesus is LORD" remains a serious
> > matter.
>
It remains my personal choice to continue to be mindful of WDJW by
rebuking you at each GOD-given opportunity as GOD desires:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/298d4d9131be066d?
<><
May dear neighbors, friends, and brethren have a blessedly wonderful
upcoming 2009th year since the birth of our LORD Jesus Christ as our
Messiah, the Son of Man ...
... by being hungrier:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/f891e617d10bd689?
Hunger is wonderful ! ! !
It's how we know the answer to the question "What does Jesus
want?" (WDJW):
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/f43db72a7c5c1da0?
Yes, hunger is our knowledge of good versus evil that Adam and Eve
paid for with their and our immortal lives:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/52a3db8576495806?
"Blessed are you who hunger NOW...
... for you will be satisfied." -- LORD Jesus Christ (Luke 6:21)
Amen.
Here is a Spirit-guided exegesis of Luke 6:21 given in hopes of
promoting much greater understanding:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/cc2aa8f8a4d41360?
Be hungrier, which is truly healthier:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/991d4e30704307e7?
Marana tha
Prayerfully in the awesome name of our Messiah, LORD Jesus Christ,
Andrew <><
--
"... no one can say 'Jesus is LORD' except by the Holy Spirit." (1 Cor
12:3)
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/035c93540862751c?
fasgnadh
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/427fb94e4bc7108e?
>
> <><
>
> "... no one can say 'Jesus is LORD' except by the Holy Spirit." (1 Cor
> 12:3)
Jesus is Lord
But I am not a Christian.
"Reflect how Jesus, the Spirit of God, was,
notwithstanding His extreme meekness and perfect
tender-heartedness, treated by His enemies.
So fierce was the opposition which He,
the Essence of Being and Lord of the visible
and invisible, had to face, that He had nowhere
to lay His head."
- Also Not a Christian.
It is not the label which matters, but the content.
> What does Jesus want (WDJW) ?
Peace and Joy for everyone,
at Christmas and all through the year.
Oh, and Matt 22:37-39 of course! ;-)
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>
> > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/427fb94e4bc7108e?
> >
> > <><
> >
> > "... no one can say 'Jesus is LORD' except by the Holy Spirit." (1 Cor
> > 12:3)
>
> Jesus is Lord
Not the same as writing that Jesus is LORD.
> But I am not a Christian.
If the Holy Spirit helps you publicly say "Jesus is LORD", it does
mean you are Christian though you may choose to deny this just as
there are homosexual Christians who have elected to deny they are
homosexual:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/6fa2ab56007d724e?
<><
"... no one can say 'Jesus is LORD' except by the Holy Spirit." (1 Cor
12:3)
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/035c93540862751c?
What does Jesus want (WDJW) ?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/188fd2ec63b3ba63?
Anon
Anon
Anon
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
<><
May dear neighbors, friends, and brethren have a blessedly wonderful
upcoming 2009th year since the birth of our LORD Jesus Christ as our
Messiah, the Son of Man ...
... by being hungrier:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/f891e617d10bd689?
Hunger is wonderful ! ! !
It's how we know the answer to the question "What does Jesus
want?" (WDJW):
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/f43db72a7c5c1da0?
Yes, hunger is our knowledge of good versus evil that Adam and Eve
paid for with their and our immortal lives:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/52a3db8576495806?
"Blessed are you who hunger NOW...
... for you will be satisfied." -- LORD Jesus Christ (Luke 6:21)
Amen.
Here is a Spirit-guided exegesis of Luke 6:21 given in hopes of
promoting much greater understanding:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/cc2aa8f8a4d41360?
Be hungrier, which is truly healthier:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/991d4e30704307e7?
Marana tha
Prayerfully in the awesome name of our Messiah, LORD Jesus Christ,
Andrew <><
--
arah
"What does Jesus want?"
To follow his most important commandment
One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing
that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the
commandments, which is the most important?" "The most important one,"
answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord
is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your
soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' The second is
this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment
greater than these." (NIV, Mark 12:28-31).
Jesus never said the most important commandment is to become
Christian, cos Jesus is not a Christian and never ever called those
who follow his teaching as Christian.
Who are the Chrisitan?
The followers of Paul or Saul the Murderer.
Cheers
On Dec 21, 7:45Â am, "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <lov...@thetruth.com>
wrote:
bobandcarole
wrote:
> Behold in wide-eyed wonder and amazement:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/725c5ad0b5167060?
>
> upcoming 2009th year since the birth of our LORD Jesus Christ as our
> Messiah, the Son of Man ...
>
The birth of Jesus was on this wise:
When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came
together, she was fucked up the ass by the Holy Ghost.
Then she did shit, and when she looked at the shit, behold, she saw
the vision of The Lord.
Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make
her
a publick example, was minded to put her away privily, for she was
hallucinating like a crazy fucking bitch.
But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord
appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear
not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in
her is of the Holy Shit.
Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of
the Lord by the prophet, saying,
Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son,
and
they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God
with us.
Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had
bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
So they called his name Jesus (not Emmanuel, cuz the angel of the
Lord
is, after all, a drunken asshole), and He later proved to be nothing
more than shit, and all His disciples from then afterward have proven
themselves to be eaters of shit. Here's proof:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion/browse_thread/thread/e1f574aaab95d0ab
Anon
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote
>
>
> "What does Jesus want?"
>
> To follow his most important commandment
Incorrect.
Jesus wants us to obey all His commandments including the ones that
are not written down.
The latter we discover in our personal walks with Him as His
disciples.
"With man this is impossible, but with GOD all things are possible."
-- LORD Jesus Christ (Matthew 19:26)
Amen.
Anon
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
<><
... by being hungrier:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/f891e617d10bd689?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/f43db72a7c5c1da0?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/52a3db8576495806?
Amen.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/cc2aa8f8a4d41360?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/991d4e30704307e7?
Marana tha
Andrew <><
--
"... no one can say 'Jesus is LORD' except by the Holy Spirit." (1 Cor
12:3)
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/035c93540862751c?
What does Jesus want (WDJW) ?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/c805a3fe6c8c39c9?