Re: Ask Jonah
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> A little girl was talking to her teacher about whales.
> The teacher said it was physically impossible for a whale to swallow a
> human
> because even though it was a very large mammal its throat was very
> small.
> The little girl stated that Jonah was swallowed by a whale.
> Irritated, the teacher reiterated that a whale could not swallow a
> human; it was physically impossible.
With GOD all things are possible (Matthew 19:26).
> The little girl said, "When I get to heaven I will ask Jonah."
It is possible that Jonah was swallowed by a large fish as it is
written in the Bible rather than a whale (which from the perspective of
the human writers at the time may still have been called a big fish).
> The teacher asked, " What if Jonah went to Hell?"
> The little girl replied, "Then you ask him".
:-)
A brainier (less funnier) little girl would reply:
"All of GOD's prophets go to heaven even if they initially mess up as
Jonah did. Would pray that you don't find this out the hard way where
you are headed when he is not there for you to ask him."
May GOD continue to heal our hearts by filling them with HIS love, dear
sister Claudia whom I love unconditionally.
Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung
Cardiologist, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit
As for knowing who are the very elect, these you will know by the
unconditional love they have for everyone including their enemies
(Matthew 5:44-45, 1 Corinthians 13:3, James 2:14-17).
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/d3b7b57d0fbf89ed?
"Those with GOD's love in their hearts will be able to openly express
their unconditional love for others in deed, in truth, in word, and in
tongue." -- Holy Spirit.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/15abbb67b6ccdd62?
Mark T
> With GOD all things are possible (Matthew 19:26).
"All things are probable. Try to believe." - Mark 17:1
"Really! Try to believe even if it's bloody stupid and irrational." - Mark
17:2
"Why? Because I said so, that's why! Don't ask questions. Just
believe." - Mark 17:3
--
"We're Christians! We're not supposed to think!" Fanny Wype (Nudist Colony
Of The Dead)
swa...@ozemail.com.au
Mark T wrote:
> "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <nosp...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
>
> > With GOD all things are possible (Matthew 19:26).
>
> "All things are probable. Try to believe." - Mark 17:1
> 17:2
> "Why? Because I said so, that's why! Don't ask questions. Just
> believe." - Mark 17:3
>
As you are adding to scripture you need to beware!.
Revelation 22 : 18
For I testify unto every man that heareth
(today that surely could be translated 'readeth')
the words of the prophecy of this book.
If any man shall add unto these things,
God shall add unto him
the plagues that are written in this book;
Revelation 22 : 19
If any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy,
God shall take away .his part out of the book of life, and out of the
holy city'
and from the things that are written in this book.
<snip>>
"We're Christians! We're not supposed to think!" <snip>
Mark, In life there are some things we have to accept as given,
for example, train timetables, (even if the trains don't arrive when
scheduled).
We can't think out every aspect of life
and implement it just as we might want it to be.
As Christians there are facts of the life and ministry,
the death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ,
that although we do not have first-hand experiences and proof
we accept as given.
But that doesn't mean that, as Christians, we are 'not supposed to
think!'
That is such a foolish statement.
>From your postings that I have read
I assume that you accept a liberal Christianity
that developed from the mid 1800's.
You accept those writings as thinking, reasoning, even debating the
Christian faith.
But if Jesus Christ (as recorded in the New Testament)
is not the centre of that faith
then how can that faith be Christian?
Perhaps you need to do some more thinking on these matters?
Gladys Swager
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
We should continue to pray on behalf of neighbor Mark Tindell.
He still has not gotten over GOD taking his brother away from him.
And, so his hatred of GOD poisons everything for him and consumes him.
"Those who live by the sword will die by the sword." -- LORD Jesus
Christ
May GOD continue to heal our hearts, dear sister Gladys whom I love
Mark T
>> > With GOD all things are possible (Matthew 19:26).
>>
>> "All things are probable. Try to believe." - Mark 17:1
>> "Really! Try to believe even if it's .......stupid and irrational." -
>> Mark 17:2
>> "Why? Because I said so, that's why! Don't ask questions. Just
>> believe." - Mark 17:3
>>
> There is no Mark 17 in my KJV Bible. or in any other KJV Bible.
You're reading the wrong translations. Use the MTV from which the above
were taken. ;-)
> "We're Christians! We're not supposed to think!"
...
> That is such a foolish statement.
I know! .... yet it is how fundamentalist Christians are satirised in the
musical "Nudist Colony Of The Dead"
What makes satire work?
Mark T
>> > "All things are probable. Try to believe." - Mark 17:1
>> > "Really! Try to believe even if it's .......stupid and irrational." -
>> > Mark 17:2
>> > "Why? Because I said so, that's why! Don't ask questions. Just
>> > believe." - Mark 17:3
>> There is no Mark 17 in my KJV Bible. or in any other KJV Bible.
.......
> his hatred of GOD poisons everything for him and consumes him.
QUE?????
I AM a Christian ... but an Exiled Believer.
#################################################
... quoting from James Barr's book "Fundamentalism" on the three
distinguishing features of the Fundamentalist '... an assurance that those
who do not share their religious viewpoint are not really true Christians at
all.' - Peter Cameron "Heretic" (Doubleday; Sydney: 1994) p. 178
#################################################
--
###############################################################
"I (GOD NOT GOD'S MESSIAH), even I (GOD NOT GOD'S MESSIAH),
am he who blots out your transgressions, for my own sake, and remembers
your sins no more. " - Isaiah 43:25
################################################################
Then God spoke all these words. He said: 'I am Yahweh your God who brought
you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You shall have NO
GODS
(INCLUDING JESUS) EXCEPT ME.' - Exodus 20: 1-2
################################################################
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" wrote:
>
> >> > "All things are probable. Try to believe." - Mark 17:1
> >> > "Really! Try to believe even if it's .......stupid and irrational." -
> >> > Mark 17:2
> >> > "Why? Because I said so, that's why! Don't ask questions. Just
> >> > believe." - Mark 17:3
> >> There is no Mark 17 in my KJV Bible. or in any other KJV Bible.
> .......
> > his hatred of GOD poisons everything for him and consumes him.
>
>
> QUE?????
>
> I AM a Christian ... but an Exiled Believer.
Snow White was given an apple ... albeit a poisoned apple.
May GOD continue to keep your heart beating, dear Mark whom I love
Mark T
>> >> > "All things are probable. Try to believe." - Mark 17:1
>> >> > "Really! Try to believe even if it's .......stupid and
>> >> > irrational." -
>> >> > Mark 17:2
>> >> > "Why? Because I said so, that's why! Don't ask questions. Just
>> >> > believe." - Mark 17:3
>> >> There is no Mark 17 in my KJV Bible. or in any other KJV Bible.
>> .......
>> > his hatred of GOD poisons everything for him and consumes him.
>> QUE?????
>> I AM a Christian ... but an Exiled Believer.
>
> Snow White was given an apple ... albeit a poisoned apple.
Then fundamentalists like you are the wicked witch ............as you have
forced Christiuans like myself into exile from the church.
Read and learn ..................
A post sent elsewhere by me trying to explain what an "Exiled Believer" is.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I can only answer from my own point of view.
1. What do you "believers in exile" believe? Major premises
The term comes from John Shelby Spong in "Why Christianity Must Change Or
Die" (HarperSanFrancisco : 1998)p. 20 ff entitled "On Saying the Christian
Creed With Honesty" & "The Meaning Of The Exile And How We Got There" ...
and which describes me accurately ....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So while claiming to be a believer (* I.e. a Christian) and still asserting
my deeply held commitment to Jesus as Lord and Christ, I also recognize that
I live in a state of exile from the presuppositions of my own religious
past. I am exiled from the literal understandings that shaped the creed at
its creation. I am exiled from the worldview in which the creed was formed.
The only thing I know to do in this moment of Christian history is to enter
this exile, to feel its anxiety and discomfort, but to continue to be a
believer. This is now my self-definition. I am a believer who increasingly
lives in exile from the traditional way in which Christianity has heretofore
been proclaimed. "A believer in exile" is a new status in religious circles,
but I am convinced that countless numbers of people who either still inhabit
religious institutions or who once did will resonate with that designation.
I see in this moment of Christian history a new vocation for me as a
religious leader and anew vocation for the Christian church in all of its
manifestations. That vocation is to legitimize the questions, the probings,
and, in whatever form, the faith of the exiled believer. I believe that a
conversation and a dialogue must be opened with those who cannot any longer
give their assent to the premodern theological concepts that continue to
mark the life of our increasingly irrelevant ecclesiastical institutions. I
think the time has come for the Church to invite its people into a
frightening journey into the mystery of God and to stop proclaiming that
somehow the truth of God is still bound by either our literal scriptures or
our literal creeds. ...
Exile is never a voluntary experience. It is always something forced upon a
person or a people by things or circumstances over which the affected ones
have no control. ... Exile is an enforced dislocation into which one enters
without any verifiable hope of either a return to the past or an arrival at
some future desired place. ... The Christian faith came into existence in a
world radically different from the one it now seeks to inhabit. ... The
biblical view of the universe was slowly and quietly discarded. ... People
began to grasp the fact that God did not sit on a throne beyond the sky
looking down. Divine intervention became a problematic concept. As the
knowledge of the universe grew, the religious community tried to adjust.
Christianity began to shift God's dwelling place form "up there" to "out
there," as if somehow that new spatial image made God more believable.
Finally ... distances overwhelmed even this concept of God's dwelling place.
.... Our embrace of the vastness of space had the effect, finally, of
removing God from the sky and then increasingly even from our human
consciousness. ... Those biblical accounts were so obviously shaped by the
ancient three-tiered worldview, whose shape Copernicus and Galileo and
countless other had delineated, began to awaken to the fact that they could
no longer use any of the traditional language about God and a heaven "out
there" that so deeply filled our ancient faith system. That language had
lost its meaning. ...
After a while even the members of those congregations who continue to gather
during a drought to pray for rain did not trust their work sufficiently to
bring raincoats and umbrellas. ...
Truth can never be deterred just because it is inconvenient. .. We like the
Jews of old, had been forcibly removed from all that had previously given
life meaning. .... No way out of this exile is either visible or guaranteed.
....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rather than believing dogma we are discussing the following:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Twelve Theses - John Shelby Spong
from "Here I Stand" ( HarperCollins; New York:2000 pp. 468 -469)
Drawn from my book Why Christianity Must Change or Die: A Bishop Speaks to
Believers in Exile
A Call for a New Reformation
1. Theism, as a way of defining God, is dead. God can no longer be
understood with credibility as a Being, supernatural in power, dwelling
above the sky and prepared to invade human history periodically to enforce
the divine will. So, most theological God-talk today is meaningless unless
we find a new way to speak of God.
2. Since God can no longer be conceived in theistic terms, it becomes
nonsensical to seek to understand Jesus as the incarnation of the theistic
deity. So, the Christology of the ages is bankrupt.
3. The biblical story of the perfect and finished creation from which human
beings fell into sin is pre-Darwinian mythology and post-Darwinian nonsense.
4. The virgin birth, understood as literal biology, makes the divinity of
Christ, as traditionally understood, impossible.
5. The miracle stories of the New Testament can no longer be interpreted in
a post-Newtonian world as supernatural events performed by an incarnate
deity.
6. The view of the cross as the sacrifice for the sins of the world is a
barbarian idea based on primitive concepts of God that must be dismissed.
7. Resurrection is an action of God, who raised Jesus into the meaning of
God. It therefore cannot be a physical resuscitation occurring inside human
history..
8. The story of the ascension assumed a three-tiered universe and is
therefore not capable of being translated into the concepts of a
post-Copernican space age.
9. There is no external, objective, revealed standard writ in Scripture or
on tablets of stone that will govern our ethical behavior for all time.
10. Prayer cannot be a request made to a theistic deity to act in human
history in a particular way.
11. The hope for life after death must be separated forever from the
behavior-control mentality of reward and punishment. The church must
abandon, therefore, its reliance on guilt as a motivator of behavior.
12. All human beings bear God's image and must be respected for what each
person is. Therefore, no external description of one's being, whether based
on race, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation, can properly be used as
the basis for cither rejection or discrimination.
Author's Note: These theses posted for debate are inevitably stated in a
negative manner. That is deliberate. Before one can hear what Christianity
is one must create room for that bearing by clearing out the misconceptions
of what Christianity is not. Why Christianity Must Change or Die is a
manifesto calling the church to a new reformation. In that book I begin to
sketch out a view of God beyond theism, an understanding of' the Christ as a
God presence and a vision of the shape of both the church and its Liturgy
for the future.
[* This was more fully presented in his later book "A New Christianity For A
New World"]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~迥
2. How do they view the bible?
The Bible ...[is] ... a collection of human responses to God (very human,
some of them all too human), which we are at liberty to use in the process
of formulating our own individual, unique response to God. We don't do that
by imitating these responses slavishly. I mean God, if he exists, doesn't
want innumerable clones of the apostle Paul. He wants us to respond to him,
each of us in our own unique way. And we can use the Bible to do that, but
we don't do it by obeying it slavishly and blindly. - Peter Cameron
"Heretic" (Doubleday; Sydney: 1994) p. 195
Peter Cameron is Australia's own living "heretic" ...according to our
Presbyterian church. Google to find out more.
3. Where do they get their beliefs from?
Truth. All truth is God's truth.
4. Is there much variance (of beliefs) amongst believers in exile?
Huge.
Also see:
http://virtualreligion.net/forum/ http://www.sof-in-australia.org/
http://www.robotwisdom.com/issues/crossan.html
http://www.contemporarytheology.org/
http://faithfutures.org/sinsofscripture.html
http://www.utoronto.ca/religion/synopsis/
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/
5. How do they relate to God?
"In God we live and move and have our being." .... as the bible and a pagan
poet both say. God is the Ground of all Being (Tillich / existentialism)
Jesus is not God / YHWH but YHWH's human Messiah.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Pre- and Post-Easter Jesus
Understanding and knowing Jesus involves history, tradition, and
experience. -Marcus Borg
The pre-Easter Jesus means:
a.. The historical Jesus
b.. Jesus of Nazareth
c.. A first century Galilean Jew
d.. A figure of the past
The post-Easter Jesus means:
What Jesus became after his death, the Jesus of Christian experience and
tradition.
In Christian experience people continue to experience Jesus as a living
reality, as a figure of the present; as a spiritual living divine reality
In Christian tradition: Jesus is increasingly spoken of as a divine reality
and eventually seen as "very God of very God."
It is crucial to make this distinction, says Borg, or Jesus becomes unreal,
incredible and inaccessible.
Compare pre- and post-Easter Jesus
Pre-Easter Jesus / Post-Easter Jesus
4 B.C.E. to 30 C.E. / 30 C.E. to present
Corporeal, human being of flesh and blood Spiritual / non-material reality
Finite and mortal / Infinite, eternal
Human / Divine
A Jewish peasant / King of Kings and Lord of Lords
Figure of the past / Figure of the present
Jesus of Nazareth / Jesus Christ
Monotheistic Jew / Becomes the second person of the trinity, "God with a
human face"
Galilean Jew of the first century / "The Face of God" (metaphor based on 2
Cor. 4:6 Beholding the glory of God in the face of Christ)
From http://www.united.edu/portrait/compare.shtml
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" wrote:
>
> >> >> > "All things are probable. Try to believe." - Mark 17:1
> >> >> > "Really! Try to believe even if it's .......stupid and
> >> >> > irrational." -
> >> >> > Mark 17:2
> >> >> > "Why? Because I said so, that's why! Don't ask questions. Just
> >> >> > believe." - Mark 17:3
> >> >> There is no Mark 17 in my KJV Bible. or in any other KJV Bible.
> >> .......
> >> > his hatred of GOD poisons everything for him and consumes him.
> >> QUE?????
> >> I AM a Christian ... but an Exiled Believer.
> >
> > Snow White was given an apple ... albeit a poisoned apple.
>
> Then fundamentalists like you are the wicked witch ............as you have
> forced Christiuans like myself into exile from the church.
Fundamentalists did not take your brother from you. GOD did.
> Read and learn ..................
Love is patient.
> A post sent elsewhere by me trying to explain what an "Exiled Believer" is.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
> I can only answer from my own point of view.
>
>
> 1. What do you "believers in exile" believe? Major premises
>
>
> The term comes from John Shelby Spong in "Why Christianity Must Change Or
> Die" (HarperSanFrancisco : 1998)p. 20 ff entitled "On Saying the Christian
> Creed With Honesty" & "The Meaning Of The Exile And How We Got There" ...
> and which describes me accurately ....
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> So while claiming to be a believer (* I.e. a Christian) and still asserting
> my deeply held commitment to Jesus as Lord and Christ, I also recognize that
> I live in a state of exile from the presuppositions of my own religious
> past. I am exiled from the literal understandings that shaped the creed at
> its creation. I am exiled from the worldview in which the creed was formed.
Writing that one is commited to Jesus as Lord and Christ is not the
same as writing that one has placed ones faith in LORD Jesus Christ.
"Doubting" Thomas was committed to Jesus as evident by his willingness
to follow Jesus even if it meant death but had not placed his faith in
LORD Jesus Christ until he had seen the risen Christ Jesus compelling
him to exclaim:
"My LORD **and** my GOD !"
> The only thing I know to do in this moment of Christian history is to enter
> this exile, to feel its anxiety and discomfort, but to continue to be a
> believer. This is now my self-definition. I am a believer who increasingly
> lives in exile from the traditional way in which Christianity has heretofore
> been proclaimed. "A believer in exile" is a new status in religious circles,
> but I am convinced that countless numbers of people who either still inhabit
> religious institutions or who once did will resonate with that designation.
You have GOD's gift of free will that HE has generously given to all
souls including those belonging to fig trees (Mark 11:12-14,20)
> I see in this moment of Christian history a new vocation for me as a
> religious leader and anew vocation for the Christian church in all of its
> manifestations. That vocation is to legitimize the questions, the probings,
> and, in whatever form, the faith of the exiled believer. I believe that a
> conversation and a dialogue must be opened with those who cannot any longer
> give their assent to the premodern theological concepts that continue to
> mark the life of our increasingly irrelevant ecclesiastical institutions. I
> think the time has come for the Church to invite its people into a
> frightening journey into the mystery of God and to stop proclaiming that
> somehow the truth of God is still bound by either our literal scriptures or
> our literal creeds. ...
Without the guidance of the Holy Spirit, your fruit will be no better
than that of your predecessors whom you have judged to be "increasingly
irrelevant."
> Exile is never a voluntary experience. It is always something forced upon a
> person or a people by things or circumstances over which the affected ones
> have no control. ... Exile is an enforced dislocation into which one enters
> without any verifiable hope of either a return to the past or an arrival at
> some future desired place. ... The Christian faith came into existence in a
> world radically different from the one it now seeks to inhabit. ... The
> biblical view of the universe was slowly and quietly discarded. ... People
> began to grasp the fact that God did not sit on a throne beyond the sky
> looking down. Divine intervention became a problematic concept. As the
> knowledge of the universe grew, the religious community tried to adjust.
> Christianity began to shift God's dwelling place form "up there" to "out
> there," as if somehow that new spatial image made God more believable.
> Finally ... distances overwhelmed even this concept of God's dwelling place.
> .... Our embrace of the vastness of space had the effect, finally, of
> removing God from the sky and then increasingly even from our human
> consciousness. ... Those biblical accounts were so obviously shaped by the
> ancient three-tiered worldview, whose shape Copernicus and Galileo and
> countless other had delineated, began to awaken to the fact that they could
> no longer use any of the traditional language about God and a heaven "out
> there" that so deeply filled our ancient faith system. That language had
> lost its meaning. ...
The limitations of language serve to underscore HIS infinite qualities.
> After a while even the members of those congregations who continue to gather
> during a drought to pray for rain did not trust their work sufficiently to
> bring raincoats and umbrellas. ...
Prayer is not our work but brings about GOD's work in reshaping us to
fit into HIS infinite will. In our prayers, we trust the LORD will
provide for our needs in HIS way as the omniscient and omnipotent Being
Who created the universe. HIS ways are inscrutable to us because we
are so far from being either omniscient or omnipotent. And, so when we
ask in prayer for a drought to end, we have no expectations about
knowing exactly how and when GOD will end a drought. To bring
raincoats and umbrellas would mean that we hold the false belief that
we control GOD through prayer.
Recall that when a wedding ran out of wine and mother Mary asked Jesus
to help with the problem, she did not indicate that she knew how Jesus
would help. Instead, by instructing the servants to do whatever Jesus
commanded, she revealed that she did not know how Jesus would help.
Folks praying for a drought to end may have their prayers answered by
water mysteriously welling up from the ground providing irrigation of
parched soil. No need for raincoats and umbrellas is this case.
May GOD continue to keep your heart beating, dear neighbor Mark whom I
Demon Lord of Confusion
confuse the issue further by squeaking:
> Mark T wrote:
>> "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" wrote:
>>
>> > With GOD all things are possible (Matthew 19:26).
>>
>> "All things are probable. Try to believe." - Mark 17:1 "Really! Try to
>> believe even if it's .......stupid and irrational." - Mark 17:2
>> "Why? Because I said so, that's why! Don't ask questions. Just
>> believe." - Mark 17:3
>
> There is no Mark 17 in my KJV Bible. or in any other KJV Bible.
No. Mark's engaging in satire, a concept largely foreign to Xianity.
--
________________________________________________________________________
Hail Eris! mhm 29x21; TM#5; COOSN-029-06-71069
The God of Odd Statements
Stupidity Takes Its Toll. Please Have Exact Change.
Please remember to vote Outer Filth John Harrington, "James C. Cracked",
and "Ward Hardmanure"/"Pete"/<wfh_jr> for KotM, CotM, CNotM, and the
Special Ops Cody Memorial Award!
Thread where outing begins: http://tinyurl.com/hojf8
Also vote Ward Hardmanure for Order of the Holey Sockpuppet!
George Pickett Memorial Award nominee <wfh...@hotmail.com> on outing
personal contact info in x-poasted subject lines:
"Plenty of people post under their real names and do not attempt to hide
their contact info. You are scared of being 'outed' because you are a
pathological abuser of usenet, and people rightly despise you for it.
You're afraid of being reported to the authorities or, better, visited
by a couple of guys with baseball bats. Other people don't have this
obsessive fear. Ward Hardman himself has posted plenty of personal
information - nothing that anyone else added was hidden in any way.
You're so fucking scared you've built up this whole sick mythology about
different categories of bad dudes who 'out' scum like you.
"Meanwhile you are the ugliest pigfucker in the universe. You are the
coward without ethics. You call me a 'newbie' - ha! what an asshole you
are. Those who want to remain anonymous do so. There is absolutely no
way you could identify me, not unless you had the sort of subpoena power
that only gets turned on for big-time terrorists. That's because I chose
to be anonymous. Some people don't. Only really stupid dicks like you
choose the sort of semi-anonymity which leaves you in constant fear.
"What a dickless wonder you are 'Snarky' you fat asshole."
-- in MID: <1156587081....@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>
Werner -the Christian Agnostic- Kurator
in <1157681996.6...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>
on 2006-09-08 announced this statement:
<cut to the point of my reply>
> "Doubting" Thomas was committed to Jesus as evident by his
> willingness to follow Jesus even if it meant death but had not
> placed his faith in LORD Jesus Christ until he had seen the
> risen Christ Jesus compelling him to exclaim:
>
> "My LORD **and** my GOD !"
Which "Doubting Thomas" do we encounter this time here Andrew,
the original Jew maybe, as in the past you offered a couple:
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
in <1152023147....@h44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
on 2006-07-04 announced this statement:
<cut>
> "My LORD **and** my GOD ! " -- Archetypal agnostic Christian
> "Doubting" Thomas upon seeing the risen Christ Jesus
> (John 20:28).
=== end quote
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
in <1155936872.6...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>
on 2006-08-18 announced this statement:
<cut>
"My LORD and my GOD ! " -- Archetypal Atheist "Doubting" Thomas
upon seeing the risen Christ Jesus.
=== end quote
My request to come up with a prove that Thomas was an Atheist as
you typed, was never answered....
>
>
Werner Kurator
--
==========================================================
"Like all translations of the Bible, made as they are by
imperfect man, this one undoubtedly falls short of its goals. Yet
we are grateful to God for the extent to which he has enabled us
to realize these goals and for the strength he has given us and
our colleagues to complete our task."
Preface to the "New International Version" of the Bible
June 1978
(Revised August 1983)
==============================================================
"I am writing for the 'Christian agnostic,' by which I mean a
person who... thought he is sure of many Christians truth,
feels that he cannot honestly and conscientiously 'sign on the
dotted line' that he believes certain theological ideas about
what some branches of the Church dogmatize."
"LESLIE D. WEATHERHEAD's thoughtful and compelling Christian
writings brought him worldwide acclaim during his lifetime. His
many other books include "the will of God", "The Autobiography
of Jesus", "Life begins at death", "The meaning of the Cross",
"Prescription for anxiety", and "time for God". Dr. Weatherhead
served as the pastor of City Temple in London, England, from
1936 until 1960"
== quote taken from the back-cover of his "the Christian Agnostic"...
==============================================================
"If you choke a smurf, what color does it turn?"
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew wrote:
>
> <cut to the point of my reply>
>
> > "Doubting" Thomas was committed to Jesus as evident by his
> > willingness to follow Jesus even if it meant death but had not
> > placed his faith in LORD Jesus Christ until he had seen the
> > risen Christ Jesus compelling him to exclaim:
> >
> > "My LORD **and** my GOD !"
>
> Which "Doubting Thomas" do we encounter this time here Andrew,
> the original Jew maybe, as in the past you offered a couple:
No. Only one Thomas, who was one of the original 12 disciples chosen
by Christ Jesus.
May GOD continue to keep your heart beating, dear neighbor Werner whom
Text Medium No. 5
jabbered inanely:
> Werner -the Christian Agnostic- Kurator wrote:
>> Andrew wrote:
>>
>> <cut to the point of my reply>
>>
>> > "Doubting" Thomas was committed to Jesus as evident by his willingness
>> > to follow Jesus even if it meant death but had not placed his faith in
>> > LORD Jesus Christ until he had seen the risen Christ Jesus compelling
>> > him to exclaim:
>> >
>> > "My LORD **and** my GOD !"
>>
>> Which "Doubting Thomas" do we encounter this time here Andrew, the
>> original Jew maybe, as in the past you offered a couple:
>
> No. Only one Thomas, who was one of the original 12 disciples chosen by
> Christ Jesus.
Your dishonesty is typical of the way you have behaved throughout this
thread.
=====================================================================
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
in <1152023147....@h44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> on 2006-07-04
announced this statement:
<cut>
> "My LORD **and** my GOD ! " -- Archetypal agnostic Christian "Doubting"
> Thomas upon seeing the risen Christ Jesus (John 20:28).
=== end quote
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
in <1155936872.6...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> on 2006-08-18
announced this statement:
<cut>
"My LORD and my GOD ! " -- Archetypal Atheist "Doubting" Thomas upon
seeing the risen Christ Jesus.
======================================================================
So which was he, an agnostic or an atheist? Oops, better snip all of this,
or you'll look stupid again! Now tell me you love me.
--
Shon'ai COOSN-029-06-71069
"I was told there would be cookies."
Cross-Poasters For Goddess!
Remember: Straight people can't help it!
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Amen !
Laus Deo ! !
Marana tha ! ! !
May GOD continue to keep your heart beating, dear neighbor whom I love
unconditonally.
Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung
Cardiologist, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit
As for knowing who are the very elect, these you will know by the
unconditional love they have for everyone including their enemies
(Matthew 5:44-45, 1 Corinthians 13:3, James 2:14-17).
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/d3b7b57d0fbf89ed?
Archie Leach
>"An agnostic is a closet atheist." -- Holy Spirit
"I think this Andrew Chung fellow is making a gross overgeneralization
about agnostics." -- Holy Spirit
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Without the LORD, what you think is meaningless (Ecclesiastes).
May GOD continue to keep your heart beating, dear neighbor Archie whom
I love unconditionally.
The Demon of Mockery
Awww, that's so cwever. Top-post your reply, that's the way to do it.
Big problem with your latest thesis: I'm not even a /closet/ atheist.
Check out my responses to Barwell, as Text Medium No. 5, The God of Odd
Statements, and The Demon Lord of Confusion (also FreeSpeechStore and
Cardinal Snarky, IIRC). To put it succinctly, I don't think that either
you or the atheists have ever proven a damn thing. There may be a
deity, or many, and there may not. Who knows? I think pantheistic
multiperson solipsism is the best explanation for everything, but it
has so much weight behind it (Hawking has practically endorsed it) that
you may prefer to ignore it.
Snarky
Archie Leach
>Archie Leach wrote:
>> "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <lo...@thetruth.com> wrote:
>>
>> >"An agnostic is a closet atheist." -- Holy Spirit
>>
>> "I think this Andrew Chung fellow is making a gross overgeneralization
>> about agnostics." -- Holy Spirit
Post edit restored, Chungles. That was a rather prideful thing to do.
>Without the LORD, what you think is meaningless (Ecclesiastes).
"What you think is irrelevant." -- Classic Th0l3nat0r (tm)
>May GOD continue to keep your heart beating, dear neighbor Archie whom
>I love unconditionally.
>
>Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love,
>
"I hope that this Andrew Chung fellow will at least look at the
Wikipedia articles for 'atheism' and 'agnosticism' and grasp the
notion that, with so many variants of agnosticism, it truly is a gross
overgeneralization to state that an agnostic is unequivocally a closet
atheist, and furthermore, I don't apprecate being misquoted." -- Holy
Spirit
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew wrote:
> >Archie Leach wrote:
> >>
> >> >"An agnostic is a closet atheist." -- Holy Spirit
> >>
> >> I think this Andrew Chung fellow is making a gross overgeneralization
> >> about agnostics.
>
I am not the Holy Spirit.
May GOD continue to keep your heart beating, dear neighbor Archie whom
I love unconditionally.
Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love,
Andrew <><
Archie Leach
>Archie Leach wrote:
>> Andrew wrote:
>> >Archie Leach wrote:
>> >> Andrew wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >"An agnostic is a closet atheist." -- Holy Spirit
>> >>
>> >> "I think this Andrew Chung fellow is making a gross overgeneralization
>> >> about agnostics." -- Holy Spirit
Post edit restored, Chungles. That was a rather prideful thing to do.
>> Post edit restored, Chungles. That was a rather prideful thing to do.
>
>I am not the Holy Spirit.
You most certainly aren't.
>May GOD continue to keep your heart beating, dear neighbor Archie whom
>I love unconditionally.
>
[...]
> > "I hope that this Andrew Chung fellow will at least look at the
> > Wikipedia articles for 'atheism' and 'agnosticism' and grasp the
> > notion that, with so many variants of agnosticism, it truly is a gross
> > overgeneralization to state that an agnostic is unequivocally a closet
> > atheist, and furthermore, I don't apprecate being misquoted." -- Holy
> > Spirit
Note--no response. Also was snipped.
And in any case, there are such things theistic agnostics, which kind
of retufts your supposed "Holy Spirit" message, or at least renders it
oversimplified, and naive.
Kadaitcha Man
news:1157942565.5...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com
How very astute, Mister Snarky. When all is said and done, agnosticism, "I
don't think that either you or the atheists have ever proven a damn thing",
is the only logical position that can be taken in the absence of verifiable
evidence.
> Who knows? I think pantheistic multiperson solipsism
Heinlein, IIRC.
> is the best explanation for everything, but it
> has so much weight behind it (Hawking has practically endorsed it)
> that you may prefer to ignore it.
>
> Snarky
--
Casanovas, Lotharios, adulterers, skirt-chasers, debauchers,
letches, lechers and womanisers beware; Rhonda Lea Kirk
is Mrs Kadaitcha Man.
alt.usenet.kooks - Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker:
September 2005 and April 2006
Rhonda Lea Kirk
Pantheistic *multiversal* solipsism, Snarky. RAH is rolling in his
cryotank, grave, urn...damn, what did they do with him anyway?
--
Rhonda Lea Kirk
Happiness limits the amount of suffering one is
willing to inflict on others. Phèdre nó Delaunay
lynx
>"An agnostic is a closet atheist." -- Holy Spirit
>
>
And atheists say that agnostics are closet christians. Seems neither
group likes the idea that ppl can exist quite happily without embracing
their particular beliefs.
>Amen !
>
>Laus Deo ! !
>
>Marana tha ! ! !
>
>May GOD continue to keep your heart beating, dear neighbor whom I love
>unconditonally.
>
>Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love,
>
>Andrew <><
>--
>Andrew B. Chung
>Cardiologist, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
>http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit
>
>
>
--
rgds,
Pete
~~~~~
'I would take your advice, but wouldn't that be quite painful?'
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
>
> >"An agnostic is a closet atheist." -- Holy Spirit
>
> And atheists say that agnostics are closet christians.
Actually, the Holy Spirit is neither a Christian nor an atheist.
It logically follows from the fact that there is no such thing as
closet Christians, that indeed agnostics are closet atheists.
> Seems neither
> group likes the idea that ppl can exist quite happily without embracing
> their particular beliefs.
Actually, the behavior of the agnostics we have witnessed hanging
around ACC indicates that they are far from being happy.
May GOD continue to keep your heart beating, dear neighbor Pete whom I
love unconditionally
Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung
Cardiologist, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit
As for knowing who are the very elect, these you will know by the
Text Medium No. 5
inanely:
"Pantheistic multiperson solipsism, or why the land of Oz is real."
--Robert A. Heinlein, The Number of the Beast
http://www.prism-perfect.net/author/robert-heinlein/
Alas, Snarky must spank. SPANK!;-{P}
Text Medium No. 5
inanely:
> "The Demon of Mockery" wrote
The only position I've really taken, Eris aside, in the past
quarter-century or so, for that matter -- ever since I started thinking
about it.
>> Who knows? I think pantheistic multiperson solipsism
>
> Heinlein, IIRC.
Ayup. The other side of my agnosticism, that -- if there are so many
universes, well, they had to come from somewhere, and that would most
likely be our own fiction, our own dreams. Puts an interesting spin on
the "DreamTime", too...
lynx
>lynx wrote:
>
>
>>Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>"An agnostic is a closet atheist." -- Holy Spirit
>>>
>>>
>>And atheists say that agnostics are closet christians.
>>
>>
>
>Actually, the Holy Spirit is neither a Christian nor an atheist.
>
>It logically follows from the fact that there is no such thing as
>closet Christians, that indeed agnostics are closet atheists.
>
>
No it doesn't, as that argument supposes that one cannot 'be' an
agnostic. It supposes that there is no such thing as an agnostic- that
agnosticism is only a position that one moves or passes thru to some
other. It denies that agnosticism is a legitimate position in it's own
right. And besides, Christianity is not the only choice with regards
theism. So the choice cannot be confined to only christian or atheist
anyway, if one is not to be agnostic.
>>Seems neither
>>group likes the idea that ppl can exist quite happily without embracing
>>their particular beliefs.
>>
>>
>
>Actually, the behavior of the agnostics we have witnessed hanging
>around ACC indicates that they are far from being happy.
>
>May GOD continue to keep your heart beating, dear neighbor Pete whom I
>love unconditionally
>
>Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love,
>
>Andrew <><
>--
>Andrew B. Chung
>Cardiologist, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
>http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit
>
>As for knowing who are the very elect, these you will know by the
>unconditional love they have for everyone including their enemies
>(Matthew 5:44-45, 1 Corinthians 13:3, James 2:14-17).
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/d3b7b57d0fbf89ed?
>
>
>
--
rgds,
Pete
~~~~~
'Smash forehead on keyboard to continue'
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> >lynx wrote:
> >>Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> >>
> >>>"An agnostic is a closet atheist." -- Holy Spirit
> >>>
> >>And atheists say that agnostics are closet christians.
> >
> >Actually, the Holy Spirit is neither a Christian nor an atheist.
> >
> >It logically follows from the fact that there is no such thing as
> >closet Christians, that indeed agnostics are closet atheists.
>
> No it doesn't, as that argument supposes that one cannot 'be' an
> agnostic.
Actually, for this particular discussion within the parameters you have
set by what you have written, it does logically follow from the fact
that there is no such thing as closet Christians, that indeed agnostics
are closet atheists.
May GOD continue to keep your heart beating, dear neighbor Pete whom I
love unconditionally.
The God of Odd Statements
> lynx wrote:
>> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
>> >lynx wrote:
>> >>Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>"An agnostic is a closet atheist." -- Holy Spirit
>> >>
>> >>And atheists say that agnostics are closet christians.
>> >
>> >Actually, the Holy Spirit is neither a Christian nor an atheist.
>> >
>> >It logically follows from the fact that there is no such thing as
>> >closet Christians, that indeed agnostics are closet atheists.
>>
>> No it doesn't, as that argument supposes that one cannot 'be' an
>> agnostic.
>
> Actually, for this particular discussion within the parameters you have
> set by what you have written, it does logically follow from the fact that
> there is no such thing as closet Christians, that indeed agnostics are
> closet atheists.
False dichotomy. Lynx said, "And atheists say that agnostics are closet
christians," which says nothing about agnostics, only about what some
atheists say about agnostics. I, for one, defy you to prove that I am an
atheist, rather than an agnostic, based on what I have posted in this nym,
in various threads, including the ones with Barwell
--
________________________________________________________________________
Hail Eris! mhm 29x21; TM#5
Demon Lord of Confusion
COOSN-029-06-71069
Supreme High Overlord of rec.radio.*
"It would be offly hard for any of you to abuse me on usenet. Really. I
have the advantage. I could easily turn alt.usenet.kooks into a cesspool
of encoded posts. Bringing the noise ratio up so high as to make the
group worthless. Anybody who can code could do this, why nobody has
bothered before now is beyond me. The ultimate spamming engine..
'BAWAHAHA'" -- Dustbin "Outer Filth" K00k's delusions of grandeur
reached new heights, in Message-ID:
<Xns98355D29419...@69.28.186.121>
Chuck Stamford
"lynx" <no...@nothere.com> wrote in message
news:x6bNg.27218$rP1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
>
>
>>lynx wrote:
>>
>>>Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"An agnostic is a closet atheist." -- Holy Spirit
>>>>
>>>And atheists say that agnostics are closet christians.
>>>
>>
>>Actually, the Holy Spirit is neither a Christian nor an atheist.
>>
>>It logically follows from the fact that there is no such thing as
>>closet Christians, that indeed agnostics are closet atheists.
>>
>
> No it doesn't, as that argument supposes that one cannot 'be' an agnostic.
> It supposes that there is no such thing as an agnostic- that agnosticism
> is only a position that one moves or passes thru to some other. It denies
> that agnosticism is a legitimate position in it's own right. And besides,
> Christianity is not the only choice with regards theism. So the choice
> cannot be confined to only christian or atheist anyway, if one is not to
> be agnostic.
Pete, you're not going to "get through" to Andrew. He sees anything he says
as beyond dispute.
Of course you're right. Theism, taken as the belief that a (singular)
personal God and Creator of the cosmos exists, comes in other forms besides
Christianity. On that basis alone, Andrew's wrong to say what he says. You
don't even have to get into the epistemic status of being agnostic about a
particular proposition, or rack your brain trying to figure out what a
"closet" anything means in this context (personally, I take it to mean only
that Andrew doesn't have a clue as to what he's talking about....but that's
just me).
However, I would point out one of the less glorious aspects to agnosticism.
Of all the possible epistemic states in which I can be relative to any given
proposition, agnosticism guarantees, by its very nature, that I will be
wrong in my belief in regards to the truth or falsehood of that proposition.
For every proposition of every sort is either true or false. I may be wrong
as a theist, but at least I have the possibility that I'm right. Same goes
for the atheist. So even if there is absolutely NO evidence available one
way or the other regarding the existence of God, even if it is impossible
that there be any evidence (as is the case with, say, counterfactual
propositions), both the atheist and I stand in a better epistemic state to
that proposition than does the agnostic. Of course, logic requires, on any
correspondence theory of truth, that one of us is wrong. But logic also
requires that between two agnostics about the same proposition, *both* are
wrong.
God bless
Chuck Stamford
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> "lynx" <no...@nothere.com> wrote in message
> news:x6bNg.27218$rP1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> >>lynx wrote:
> >>>Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>"An agnostic is a closet atheist." -- Holy Spirit
Amen !
Laus Deo ! !
Marana tha ! ! !
> >>>And atheists say that agnostics are closet christians.
> >>
> >>Actually, the Holy Spirit is neither a Christian nor an atheist.
> >>
> >>It logically follows from the fact that there is no such thing as
> >>closet Christians, that indeed agnostics are closet atheists.
> >
> > No it doesn't, as that argument supposes that one cannot 'be' an agnostic.
> > It supposes that there is no such thing as an agnostic- that agnosticism
> > is only a position that one moves or passes thru to some other. It denies
> > that agnosticism is a legitimate position in it's own right. And besides,
> > Christianity is not the only choice with regards theism. So the choice
> > cannot be confined to only christian or atheist anyway, if one is not to
> > be agnostic.
>
> Pete, you're not going to "get through" to Andrew. He sees anything he says
> as beyond dispute.
Actually, it remains my choice to avoid arguments/disputes.
GOD's purpose for me here remains to inform folks on all matters of the
heart...
"But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and
quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless."
(Titus 3:9)
May GOD continue to keep your heart beating, dear neighbor Chuck whom I
love unconditionally.
Kadaitcha Man
news:pan.2006.09.11...@hail.eris.flonk.meow.all.hail.discordia.meow.flonk.mockery.demon.not.really.leola
One day I shall take the time to explain to you why it is so that Christians
see evidence for God everywhere yet nobody else perceives it. That should
put an even more interesting spin on your agnosticism :)
Rhonda Lea Kirk
I had a review copy of the book. RAH apparently changed it in the final
version, but I never read it.
I took the following directly from the review copy a couple of years
ago:
See the post immediately preceding also.
If you still want to spank me, you'll have to get approval from Himself.
:)
--
Rhonda Lea Kirk
Happiness limits the amount of suffering one is
willing to inflict on others. Phčdre nó Delaunay
Kadaitcha Man
news:ee48q4$roo$1...@blackhelicopter.databasix.com
Approval is denied. I'll do it for him.
Text Medium No. 5
inanely:
Oh, I would imagine it's much the same as the rationale behind the Law
of Fives. They wouldn't see anything if they weren't inclined to look...
Text Medium No. 5
inanely:
> "Rhonda Lea Kirk" wrote
I read the published version several times -- love his style.
>> I took the following directly from the review copy a couple of years
>> ago:
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.space.shuttle/browse_thread/thread/4d7e28f5ce5a422c/2cae0b76ff6c44d0?lnk=st&q=pantheistic+multiversal+solipsism&rnum=1#2cae0b76ff6c44d0
>>
>> See the post immediately preceding also.
>>
>> If you still want to spank me, you'll have to get approval from Himself.
>> :)
>
> Approval is denied. I'll do it for him.
LMAO! Gracias.
Kadaitcha Man
It's more complex than that; it makes for a very interesting discussion
about world-views and missing persepctives. Perhaps one day...
Rhonda Lea Kirk
If he would send you a friggin' invitation, instead of relying on me to
pass messages along, perhaps it would be sooner rather than later. :)
Demon Lord of Confusion
the issue further by squeaking:
> "lynx" wrote...
Not really -- as an agnostic, I have not decided whether theism or
atheism is correct, and doubt I ever will. I'm not "wrong" if I haven't
/chosen/. And, as I've said elsewhere, pantheistic multiperson solipsism
remains the best bet.
--
________________________________________________________________________
Hail Eris! mhm 29x21; TM#5; COOSN-029-06-71069
The God of Odd Statements
Stupidity Takes Its Toll. Please Have Exact Change.
Thread where outing begins: http://tinyurl.com/hojf8
George Pickett Memorial Trophy, Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart,
and Order of the Holey Sockpuppet <wfh...@hotmail.com> on outing
personal contact info in x-poasted subject lines:
"Plenty of people post under their real names and do not attempt to hide
their contact info. You are scared of being 'outed' because you are a
pathological abuser of usenet, and people rightly despise you for it.
You're afraid of being reported to the authorities or, better, visited
by a couple of guys with baseball bats. Other people don't have this
obsessive fear. Ward Hardman himself has posted plenty of personal
information - nothing that anyone else added was hidden in any way.
You're so fucking scared you've built up this whole sick mythology about
different categories of bad dudes who 'out' scum like you.
"Meanwhile you are the ugliest pigfucker in the universe. You are the
coward without ethics. You call me a 'newbie' - ha! what an asshole you
are. Those who want to remain anonymous do so. There is absolutely no
way you could identify me, not unless you had the sort of subpoena power
that only gets turned on for big-time terrorists. That's because I chose
to be anonymous. Some people don't. Only really stupid dicks like you
choose the sort of semi-anonymity which leaves you in constant fear.
"What a dickless wonder you are 'Snarky' you fat asshole."
-- in MID: <1156587081....@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>
Chuck Stamford
"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <and...@emorycardiology.com> wrote in message
news:1157991872....@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
As it is your choice as to how you do that, and there are more alternatives
open to you in this than simply stating what is obviously false, and
repeating it endlessly.
>
> GOD's purpose for me here remains to inform folks on all matters of the
> heart...
Then you should stick to that, and leave the rest alone.
Chuck Stamford
Chuck Stamford
"Demon Lord of Confusion" <verwa...@verwirren.confused> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.09.12....@verwirren.confused...
For what you say here to be true, that you are "not wrong" in withholding
belief in both a proposition and it's denial, you'd have to be using "wrong"
in some other sense than having a true belief about that proposition. What
I've said above is not just true, but *necessarily* true. It's not an
opinion, open to debate. It's necessarily true if anything at all is true.
Now perhaps you believe that your withholding belief in both the proposition
"God exists" (taken as I've outlined above) and it's denial isn't "wrong",
in the sense you don't believe that epistemic position violates any
epistemic duty you have, or perhaps, best fulfills that duty. Maybe you
believe, with some others, that it is always wrong, in every case, to
believe a proposition or deny it in the absence of compelling evidence one
way or the other. But all that is beside the point of my remarks above,
which aren't about any *other* beliefs you have concerning, or "in the
neighborhood" of, or in support of your agnostic stance toward *this*
proposition.
All I pointed out is that for every proposition that exists, it is
necessarily true, if anything is true at all, the either it, or it's denial
is true, which is to say that the proposition "A or not A" is such that it
is impossible that it be false. And given that necessary truth of logic, it
follows that an agnostic as to ANY proposition is in an epistemic state
where it is impossible that their belief **as to the truth or falsehood of
that proposition** is true.
Chuck Stamford
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
It remains my choice to continue writing truthfully.
> > GOD's purpose for me here remains to inform folks on all matters of the
> > heart...
>
> Then you should stick to that, and leave the rest alone.
I have.
Demon Lord of Confusion
the issue further by squeaking:
I would, but I have no confidence that it's a replyable address...;-{P}
Kadaitcha Man
message news:pan.2006.09.12....@verwirren.confused
mailto:fuck-you...@kiss-my-big-black-ass.com
It's real.
Rhonda Lea Kirk
Oh ye of little faith. :)
Demon Lord of Confusion
the issue further by squeaking:
...Which, IMHO, is an erroneous presupposition.
> Now perhaps you believe that your withholding belief in both the
> proposition "God exists" (taken as I've outlined above) and it's denial
> isn't "wrong", in the sense you don't believe that epistemic position
> violates any epistemic duty you have, or perhaps, best fulfills that duty.
> Maybe you believe, with some others, that it is always wrong, in every
> case, to believe a proposition or deny it in the absence of compelling
> evidence one way or the other. But all that is beside the point of my
> remarks above, which aren't about any *other* beliefs you have concerning,
> or "in the neighborhood" of, or in support of your agnostic stance toward
> *this* proposition.
Both theists and atheists take faith-based stances on matters which cannot
be proven one way or the other, short of death, hence there is no rational
basis for choosing one over the other. Therefore, as a Discordian, I
choose both and neither.
> All I pointed out is that for every proposition that exists, it is
> necessarily true, if anything is true at all, the either it, or it's
> denial is true, which is to say that the proposition "A or not A" is such
> that it is impossible that it be false. And given that necessary truth of
> logic, it follows that an agnostic as to ANY proposition is in an
> epistemic state where it is impossible that their belief **as to the truth
> or falsehood of that proposition** is true.
Since I have no such belief at all, however, apart from the firm belief
that it is a mistake to hold firm beliefs;-{P}, it would be closer to
the truth to say that I am in a state more akin to that of
Schroedinger's Cat, not believing in either truth or falsehood without
substantiating evidence one way or the other. As there is no possibility
of any such evidence being forthcoming anytime soon, agnosticism and PMS
remain my metaphysical guides. And yes, the acronym has me grinning like
a loon.
Kadaitcha Man
message news:pan.2006.09.12....@verwirren.confused
> confuse the issue further by squeaking:
>> For what you say here to be true, that you are "not wrong" in
>> withholding belief in both a proposition and it's denial, you'd have
>> to be using "wrong" in some other sense than having a true belief
>> about that proposition. What I've said above is not just true, but
>> *necessarily* true. It's not an opinion, open to debate. It's
>> necessarily true if anything at all is true.
>> Now perhaps you believe that your withholding belief in both the
>> proposition "God exists" (taken as I've outlined above) and it's
>> denial isn't "wrong", in the sense you don't believe that epistemic
>> position violates any epistemic duty you have, or perhaps, best
>> fulfills that duty. Maybe you believe, with some others, that it is
>> always wrong, in every case, to believe a proposition or deny it in
>> the absence of compelling evidence one way or the other. But all
>> that is beside the point of my remarks above, which aren't about any
>> *other* beliefs you have concerning, or "in the neighborhood" of, or
>> in support of your agnostic stance toward *this* proposition.
>> All I pointed out is that for every proposition that exists, it is
>> necessarily true, if anything is true at all, the either it, or it's
>> denial is true, which is to say that the proposition "A or not A" is
>> such that it is impossible that it be false. And given that
>> necessary truth of logic, it follows that an agnostic as to ANY
>> proposition is in an epistemic state where it is impossible that
>> their belief **as to the truth or falsehood of that proposition** is
>> true.
>
> Since I have no such belief at all
He's full of shit, Snarky. The fuckwad is either trying to baffle you with
bullshit or dazzle you with more bullshit.
It is not the case that there is any proposition of the form "A or not A"
'that it is impossible that it be false.' The nincompoop is claiming that
the conditional proposition "True or False" cannot possibly be false... then
he links the necessary condition of agnostic belief to his bullshit without
even batting a fucking eyelid. BWAHAHAHHAHAHAHA!
You want me to take the fucker apart, mate?
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> lynx wrote:
> > Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> >
> > >"An agnostic is a closet atheist." -- Holy Spirit
> >
> > And atheists say that agnostics are closet christians.
>
> agnosticism IS atheism. This business about one who doesn't
> believe and doesn't not believe, is crap. If someone doesn't
> believe, then HE DOESN'T BELIEVE. There is no getting around it
> with semantic shuffling. If someone doesn't believe in any
> gods, that makes him an atheist. I am actually closer to
> agreeing with Andrews's definition than to the antithesis
> that you present.
The definition belongs to the Holy Spirit and not to me, a mere
messenger.
However, I too agree with HIS definition.
May GOD continue to keep your heart beating, dear neighbor Sean whom I
love unconditionally.
Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung
Cardiologist, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit
As for knowing who are the very elect, these you will know by the
The God of Odd Statements
> "Demon Lord of Confusion" wrote
Be my guest -- I thought I did reasonably well at contradicting him, mind,
though I will admit he nearly got me.
--
________________________________________________________________________
Hail Eris! mhm 29x21; TM#5
Demon Lord of Confusion
COOSN-029-06-71069
Supreme High Overlord of rec.radio.*
Chuck Lysaght: Tarred & Feathered!
Kadaitcha Man
message news:pan.2006.09.12....@statements.likeyours
Ta. I shall seek him out when I return to Australia.
> I thought I did reasonably well at contradicting him,
You made him produce copious amounts of methane.
> mind, though I will admit he nearly got me.
Nah.
Text Medium No. 5
inanely:
> "The God of Odd Statements" wrote
Thanks, you're most generous.
Kadaitcha Man
Hey, no worries, mate. I'd do the same for a white fella.
Text Medium No. 5
inanely:
> "Text Medium No. 5" wrote
Oh, good. Then I needn't trot out my adopted mulatto cousin.
Kadaitcha Man
news:pan.2006.09.12....@hail.eris.flonk.meow.all.hail.discordia.meow.flonk.mockery.demon.not.really.leola
Mulatto? Is that Spanish for donkey?
Text Medium No. 5
<poke> Actually, two mulatto cousins.
an offspring of a Black and a White parent
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Mulatto (also Mulato) is a term of Spanish and/or Portuguese origin
describing first-generation offspring of African and European ancestry.
Formerly a feminine form, mulattress was formed on analogy with "negress."
The forms "mulatta/mulata" survive in Spanish and Portuguese. Thus, though
many Americans of Hispanic and/or Latino origin identify themselves as
mulatto, the term is rarely used by non-Hispanic African Americans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulatto
a person of mixed ancestry with a Lislakh patriline; this word is also
narrowly defined as a person with an African mother and an European
father, or "half black and half white." During the mid-1800's, when the
exact racial admixture of African-Americans was politically and
economically important, the word mulatto was accompanied by quadroon,
meaning one quarter African, and octoroon (one eighth African). ...
http://www.maquah.net/We_Have_The_Right_To_Exist/WeHaveTheRight_26Glossary.html
Or my black uncle.;-{P}
Kadaitcha Man
news:pan.2006.09.12....@hail.eris.flonk.meow.all.hail.discordia.meow.flonk.mockery.demon.not.really.leola
<prod>
> Actually, two mulatto cousins.
>
> an offspring of a Black and a White parent
> http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
>
> Mulatto (also Mulato) is a term of Spanish and/or Portuguese origin
> describing first-generation offspring of African and European
> ancestry. Formerly a feminine form, mulattress was formed on analogy
> with "negress." The forms "mulatta/mulata" survive in Spanish and
> Portuguese. Thus, though many Americans of Hispanic and/or Latino
> origin identify themselves as mulatto, the term is rarely used by
> non-Hispanic African Americans. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulatto
>
> a person of mixed ancestry with a Lislakh patriline; this word is also
> narrowly defined as a person with an African mother and an European
> father, or "half black and half white." During the mid-1800's, when
> the exact racial admixture of African-Americans was politically and
> economically important, the word mulatto was accompanied by quadroon,
> meaning one quarter African, and octoroon (one eighth African). ...
> http://www.maquah.net/We_Have_The_Right_To_Exist/WeHaveTheRight_26Glossary.html
>
> Or my black uncle.;-{P}
There's enough insult material in the preceeding paragraphs without handing
me that last line :)
lynx
>Both theists and atheists take faith-based stances on matters which cannot
>be proven one way or the other, short of death, hence there is no rational
>basis for choosing one over the other.
>
That's exactly right. Agnosticism is the most honest position.
> Therefore, as a Discordian, I
>choose both and neither.
>
>
>
--
rgds,
Pete
~~~~~
'The buck doesn't even slow down here!'
Kadaitcha Man
> Demon Lord of Confusion wrote:
>
>
>> Both theists and atheists take faith-based stances on matters which
>> cannot be proven one way or the other, short of death, hence there
>> is no rational basis for choosing one over the other.
>>
>
> That's exactly right. Agnosticism is the most honest
Idiot. In the absence of proof, it's the only logical position.
Of course, there the caveat is that the theist has the proof; he just can't
articulate it.
lynx
>"lynx" <no...@nothere.com> wrote in message
>news:x6bNg.27218$rP1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
>
>>Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
>>
>>
>>>lynx wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"An agnostic is a closet atheist." -- Holy Spirit
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>And atheists say that agnostics are closet christians.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Actually, the Holy Spirit is neither a Christian nor an atheist.
>>>
>>>It logically follows from the fact that there is no such thing as
>>>closet Christians, that indeed agnostics are closet atheists.
>>>
>>>
>>No it doesn't, as that argument supposes that one cannot 'be' an agnostic.
>>It supposes that there is no such thing as an agnostic- that agnosticism
>>is only a position that one moves or passes thru to some other. It denies
>>that agnosticism is a legitimate position in it's own right. And besides,
>>Christianity is not the only choice with regards theism. So the choice
>>cannot be confined to only christian or atheist anyway, if one is not to
>>be agnostic.
>>
>>
>
>Pete, you're not going to "get through" to Andrew. He sees anything he says
>as beyond dispute.
>
>
I'm beginning to notice that.. :)
>Of course you're right. Theism, taken as the belief that a (singular)
>personal God and Creator of the cosmos exists, comes in other forms besides
>Christianity. On that basis alone, Andrew's wrong to say what he says. You
>don't even have to get into the epistemic status of being agnostic about a
>particular proposition, or rack your brain trying to figure out what a
>"closet" anything means in this context (personally, I take it to mean only
>that Andrew doesn't have a clue as to what he's talking about....but that's
>just me).
>
Thanks. It's somewhat disconcerting when I post what I consider to be a
sound argument, and am still met with disagreement. So it's always
helpful to have someone confirm that what I said makes sense.
>
>However, I would point out one of the less glorious aspects to agnosticism.
>Of all the possible epistemic states in which I can be relative to any given
>proposition, agnosticism guarantees, by its very nature, that I will be
>wrong in my belief in regards to the truth or falsehood of that proposition.
>For every proposition of every sort is either true or false. I may be wrong
>as a theist, but at least I have the possibility that I'm right. Same goes
>for the atheist. So even if there is absolutely NO evidence available one
>way or the other regarding the existence of God, even if it is impossible
>that there be any evidence (as is the case with, say, counterfactual
>propositions), both the atheist and I stand in a better epistemic state to
>that proposition than does the agnostic. Of course, logic requires, on any
>correspondence theory of truth, that one of us is wrong. But logic also
>requires that between two agnostics about the same proposition, *both* are
>wrong.
>
>
Yes, theists and atheists 'can' be either right or wrong, but how can
agnostics be wrong since their position is not having a position?
>God bless
>
>Chuck Stamford
>
>
>
>
--
rgds,
Pete
~~~~~
'After 35 women should not have children. 35 children are enough already'
Text Medium No. 5
<pokepokepoke>
>> Actually, two mulatto cousins.
>>
>> an offspring of a Black and a White parent
>> http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
>>
>> Mulatto (also Mulato) is a term of Spanish and/or Portuguese origin
>> describing first-generation offspring of African and European ancestry.
>> Formerly a feminine form, mulattress was formed on analogy with
>> "negress." The forms "mulatta/mulata" survive in Spanish and Portuguese.
>> Thus, though many Americans of Hispanic and/or Latino origin identify
>> themselves as mulatto, the term is rarely used by non-Hispanic African
>> Americans. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulatto
>>
>> a person of mixed ancestry with a Lislakh patriline; this word is also
>> narrowly defined as a person with an African mother and an European
>> father, or "half black and half white." During the mid-1800's, when the
>> exact racial admixture of African-Americans was politically and
>> economically important, the word mulatto was accompanied by quadroon,
>> meaning one quarter African, and octoroon (one eighth African). ...
>> http://www.maquah.net/We_Have_The_Right_To_Exist/WeHaveTheRight_26Glossary.html
>>
>> Or my black uncle.;-{P}
>
> There's enough insult material in the preceeding paragraphs without
> handing me that last line :)
Of course, you know by now that I hand you such material for my own
entertainment.
Kadaitcha Man
> Hail Eris! On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 14:07:34 -0500, Kadaitcha Man jabbered
Ooooooh... kinkeeeee.
>>> Actually, two mulatto cousins.
>>>
>>> an offspring of a Black and a White parent
>>> http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
>>>
>>> Mulatto (also Mulato) is a term of Spanish and/or Portuguese origin
>>> describing first-generation offspring of African and European
>>> ancestry. Formerly a feminine form, mulattress was formed on
>>> analogy with "negress." The forms "mulatta/mulata" survive in
>>> Spanish and Portuguese. Thus, though many Americans of Hispanic
>>> and/or Latino origin identify themselves as mulatto, the term is
>>> rarely used by non-Hispanic African Americans.
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulatto
>>>
>>> a person of mixed ancestry with a Lislakh patriline; this word is
>>> also narrowly defined as a person with an African mother and an
>>> European father, or "half black and half white." During the
>>> mid-1800's, when the exact racial admixture of African-Americans
>>> was politically and economically important, the word mulatto was
>>> accompanied by quadroon, meaning one quarter African, and octoroon
>>> (one eighth African). ...
>>> http://www.maquah.net/We_Have_The_Right_To_Exist/WeHaveTheRight_26Glossary.html
>>>
>>> Or my black uncle.;-{P}
>>
>> There's enough insult material in the preceeding paragraphs without
>> handing me that last line :)
>
> Of course, you know by now that I hand you such material for my own
> entertainment.
Of course, you know by now that I take such material for my own
entertainment.
--
Rhonda Lea Kirk
>
>>> Actually, two mulatto cousins.
>>>
>>> an offspring of a Black and a White parent
>>> http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
>>>
>>> Mulatto (also Mulato) is a term of Spanish and/or Portuguese origin
>>> describing first-generation offspring of African and European
>>> ancestry. Formerly a feminine form, mulattress was formed on
>>> analogy with "negress." The forms "mulatta/mulata" survive in
>>> Spanish and Portuguese. Thus, though many Americans of Hispanic
>>> and/or Latino origin identify themselves as mulatto, the term is
>>> rarely used by non-Hispanic African Americans.
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulatto
>>>
>>> a person of mixed ancestry with a Lislakh patriline; this word is
>>> also narrowly defined as a person with an African mother and an
>>> European father, or "half black and half white." During the
>>> mid-1800's, when the exact racial admixture of African-Americans
>>> was politically and economically important, the word mulatto was
>>> accompanied by quadroon, meaning one quarter African, and octoroon
>>> (one eighth African). ...
>>> http://www.maquah.net/We_Have_The_Right_To_Exist/WeHaveTheRight_26Glossary.html
>>>
>>> Or my black uncle.;-{P}
>>
>> There's enough insult material in the preceeding paragraphs without
>> handing me that last line :)
>
> entertainment.
Y'know, between the two of us, Snarky, we're going to make him
insufferable.
Okay...even more insufferable than he already was.
;)
Demon Lord of Confusion
> "lynx" wrote
>> Demon Lord of Confusion wrote:
>>
>>> Both theists and atheists take faith-based stances on matters which
>>> cannot be proven one way or the other, short of death, hence there is
>>> no rational basis for choosing one over the other.
>>
>> That's exactly right. Agnosticism is the most honest position<BITCHSLAP>
>
> Idiot. In the absence of proof, it's the only logical position.
>
> Of course, there the caveat is that the theist has the proof; he just
> can't articulate it.
The same could be said for the atheist, though -- look at Barwell and
Septic Alford. The best (most logical) atheists, I find, don't try to say
there *isn't* any deity, when they can't really prove it (just that they
don't believe in one, and doubt there is one), while the most tolerable
theists (usually Pagans and Jews) don't try to claim that there *is* a
deity, when they can't prove /that/, only that they think there is, and
believe in at least one.
--
________________________________________________________________________
Hail Eris! mhm 29x21; TM#5; COOSN-029-06-71069
The God of Odd Statements
Stupidity Takes Its Toll. Please Have Exact Change.
Thread where outing begins: http://tinyurl.com/hojf8
George Pickett Memorial Trophy, Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart,
and the Order of the Holey Sockpuppet winner <wfh...@hotmail.com> on
Werner -the Christian Agnostic- Kurator
in <1157938073....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
on 2006-09-11 announced this statement:
> "An agnostic is a closet atheist." -- Holy Spirit
Does this come from the "same" "Holy Spirit" who told you this:
From nos...@heartmdphd.com Thu Jan 19 15:25:20 2006
From: "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <nos...@heartmdphd.com>
Subject: Re: Forward your concerns to the European Baptist Federation
Date: 19 Jan 2006 05:34:45 -0800
Message-ID: <1137677685....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
<CUT>
David Matthieu P.P. wrote:
> Private E-mails that were sent to the Baptist Pastor Lothar
> Lessee have been published on several Usenet Public Newsgroups
> with the intent to denigrate and vilify a Poster regarding her
> sexual Orientation.
The possible global devastation on 3/29/2006 should be a greater
concern for all.
May the LORD help us all to face the great tribulation when the
Lamb opens the 6th seal possibly in less than a few months
(03/29/06), in Jesus' most precious and holy name.
Amen !!!
==== end qoute
Werner Kurator
--
==========================================================
"Like all translations of the Bible, made as they are by
imperfect man, this one undoubtedly falls short of its goals. Yet
we are grateful to God for the extent to which he has enabled us
to realize these goals and for the strength he has given us and
our colleagues to complete our task."
Preface to the "New International Version" of the Bible
June 1978
(Revised August 1983)
==============================================================
"I am writing for the 'Christian agnostic,' by which I mean a
person who... thought he is sure of many Christians truth,
feels that he cannot honestly and conscientiously 'sign on the
dotted line' that he believes certain theological ideas about
what some branches of the Church dogmatize."
"LESLIE D. WEATHERHEAD's thoughtful and compelling Christian
writings brought him worldwide acclaim during his lifetime. His
many other books include "the will of God", "The Autobiography
of Jesus", "Life begins at death", "The meaning of the Cross",
"Prescription for anxiety", and "time for God". Dr. Weatherhead
served as the pastor of City Temple in London, England, from
1936 until 1960"
== quote taken from the back-cover of his "the Christian Agnostic"...
==============================================================
There is no sin except stupidity.
-- Oscar Wilde
Werner -the Christian Agnostic- Kurator
in <1157925193....@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>
on 2006-09-10 announced this statement:
> Werner -the Christian Agnostic- Kurator wrote:
>> Andrew wrote:
>>
>> <cut to the point of my reply>
>>
>> > "Doubting" Thomas was committed to Jesus as evident by his
>> > willingness to follow Jesus even if it meant death but had
>> > not placed his faith in LORD Jesus Christ until he had seen
>> > the risen Christ Jesus compelling him to exclaim:
>> >
>> > "My LORD **and** my GOD !"
>>
>> Which "Doubting Thomas" do we encounter this time here
>> Andrew, the original Jew maybe, as in the past you offered a
>> couple:
>
> No. Only one Thomas, who was one of the original 12 disciples
> chosen by Christ Jesus.
>
So when you declared him to be a "Christian Agnostic" and then
an Atheist who doubted Jesus, were you giving wrong statements?
After all Thomas was a "JEW" who had *FAITH* IN HIS GOD, and
religion. So by all means he was a "THEIST", some-one who
believed in God least of all an "agnostic", or "atheist". I
doubt that 2000 years ago there were many *JEWS* who didn't
believe in some form of God.....
But I notices Andrew, that you *CUT* the quotes I used.
Why do you do this? Don't want to see your funny statements,
which you change any way you like and when you like it?
A simple <cut> <snip> or any other way to indicate that you just
reply to a certain portion of the previous post you're replying
to would be a honest behavior.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
in <1152023147....@h44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
on 2006-07-04 announced this statement:
<cut>
> "My LORD **and** my GOD ! " -- Archetypal agnostic Christian
> "Doubting" Thomas upon seeing the risen Christ Jesus
> (John 20:28).
=== end quote
So when Jesus rose, and met them, the disciples were already
*called* Christians at that time?
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
in <1155936872.6...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>
on 2006-08-18 announced this statement:
<cut>
"My LORD and my GOD ! " -- Archetypal Atheist "Doubting" Thomas
upon seeing the risen Christ Jesus.
=== end quote
<cut>
June 1978
And people ask me, "Mark, why do you always like the evil side better?".
Better fashion sense and hot women, that's what it's all about.
-- Mark "Kamikaze" Hughes in RASFW on the He-man movie.
Werner -the Christian Agnostic- Kurator
in <1157991872....@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
>
<cut to the point:>
> GOD's purpose for me here remains to inform folks on all matters of the
> heart...
Please do so, and stick to something you may really know.
That your *INFORMATIONS* are less then accurate, can be seen
from a blast of the past:-)
Of course you used a very *vague* language in it, so to be
certain if it doesn't happen your free to claim something else
instead. But to me a person who claims to be filled with the Holy
Spirit, can't screw up stuff like that....
From nos...@heartmdphd.com Thu Jan 19 15:25:20 2006
From: "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <nos...@heartmdphd.com>
Subject: Re: Forward your concerns to the European Baptist Federation
Date: 19 Jan 2006 05:34:45 -0800
Message-ID: <1137677685....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
<CUT>
David Matthieu P.P. wrote:
> Private E-mails that were sent to the Baptist Pastor Lothar
> Lessee have been published on several Usenet Public Newsgroups
> with the intent to denigrate and vilify a Poster regarding her
> sexual Orientation.
The possible global devastation on 3/29/2006 should be a greater
concern for all.
May the LORD help us all to face the great tribulation when the
Lamb opens the 6th seal possibly in less than a few months
(03/29/06), in Jesus' most precious and holy name.
Amen !!!
==== end quote
<cut>
>
June 1978
Any nitwit can understand computers. Many do.
The Demon Prince of Absurdity
screamed:
Feh, I'm way kinkier.
>>>> Actually, two mulatto cousins.
>>>>
>>>> an offspring of a Black and a White parent
>>>> http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
>>>>
>>>> Mulatto (also Mulato) is a term of Spanish and/or Portuguese origin
>>>> describing first-generation offspring of African and European
>>>> ancestry. Formerly a feminine form, mulattress was formed on analogy
>>>> with "negress." The forms "mulatta/mulata" survive in Spanish and
>>>> Portuguese. Thus, though many Americans of Hispanic and/or Latino
>>>> origin identify themselves as mulatto, the term is rarely used by
>>>> non-Hispanic African Americans. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulatto
>>>>
>>>> a person of mixed ancestry with a Lislakh patriline; this word is also
>>>> narrowly defined as a person with an African mother and an European
>>>> father, or "half black and half white." During the mid-1800's, when
>>>> the exact racial admixture of African-Americans was politically and
>>>> economically important, the word mulatto was accompanied by quadroon,
>>>> meaning one quarter African, and octoroon (one eighth African). ...
>>>> http://www.maquah.net/We_Have_The_Right_To_Exist/WeHaveTheRight_26Glossary.html
>>>>
>>>> Or my black uncle.;-{P}
>>>
>>> There's enough insult material in the preceeding paragraphs without
>>> handing me that last line :)
>>
>> Of course, you know by now that I hand you such material for my own
>> entertainment.
>
> Of course, you know by now that I take such material for my own
> entertainment.
Just so long as we(tinw) are clear.
--
________________________________________________________________________
Hail Eris! TM#5; COOSN-029-06-71069
Cardinal Snarky of the Fannish Inquisition
http://www6.kingdomofloathing.com/login.php
http://www.runescape.com/
No one expects the Fannish Inquisition!
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Cabal_of_the_Holy_Pretzel/join
"Etymology:
Argumentum ad Septicus : argument to putrefaction. Derived from Septicum
Argumentum : putrefaction of argument.
"Septic \Sep"tic\, Septical \Sep"tic*al\
a. [L. septicus to make putrid: cf. F. septique.]
Having power to promote putrefaction. Of or relating to or
caused by putrefaction." -- Kadaitcha Man, indirectly to
Donald "Skeptic"/"Septic" Alford, in MID: <a3svh.d...@news.alt.net>
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> in <1157938073....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
> on 2006-09-11 announced this statement:
> > "An agnostic is a closet atheist." -- Holy Spirit
>
> Does this come from the "same" "Holy Spirit" who told you this:
"With GOD all things are possible" (Matthew 19:26)
> From nos...@heartmdphd.com Thu Jan 19 15:25:20 2006
> From: "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <nos...@heartmdphd.com>
> Subject: Re: Forward your concerns to the European Baptist Federation
> Date: 19 Jan 2006 05:34:45 -0800
> Message-ID: <1137677685....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
>
> <CUT>
>
> David Matthieu P.P. wrote:
> > Private E-mails that were sent to the Baptist Pastor Lothar
> > Lessee have been published on several Usenet Public Newsgroups
> > with the intent to denigrate and vilify a Poster regarding her
> > sexual Orientation.
>
> The **possible** global devastation on 3/29/2006 should be a greater
> concern for all.
**emphasis** added.
> May the LORD help us all to face the great tribulation when the
> Lamb opens the 6th seal **possibly** in less than a few months
> (03/29/06), in Jesus' most precious and holy name.
**emphasis** added
> Amen !!!
>
> ==== end qoute
May GOD continue to keep your heart beating, dear neighbor Werner whom
Kadaitcha Man
wrote in message news:pan.2006.09.13....@hell.corn
Last time I looked, I wasn't; I was opaque.
Cardinal Snarky of the Fannish Inquisition
Comfee Chaire, and didst finally confess, after taking Muche Tea:
> Werner -the Christian Agnostic- Kurator wrote:
>> > "An agnostic is a closet atheist." -- Holy Spirit
>>
>> Does this come from the "same" "Holy Spirit" who told you this:
>
> "With GOD all things are possible" (Matthew 19:26)
>
>> From nos...@heartmdphd.com Thu Jan 19 15:25:20 2006 From: "Andrew B.
>> Chung, MD/PhD" <nos...@heartmdphd.com> Subject: Re: Forward your
>> concerns to the European Baptist Federation Date: 19 Jan 2006 05:34:45
>> -0800
>> Message-ID: <1137677685....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
>>
>> <CUT>
>>
>> David Matthieu P.P. wrote:
>> > Private E-mails that were sent to the Baptist Pastor Lothar Lessee
>> > have been published on several Usenet Public Newsgroups with the
>> > intent to denigrate and vilify a Poster regarding her sexual
>> > Orientation.
>>
>> The **possible** global devastation on 3/29/2006 should be a greater
>> concern for all.
>
> **emphasis** added.
Since when does an omniscient "Holy Spirit" use weasel words? The
possibility of global devastation has been constant for over half a
century. Sustaining concern about it for that long -- or even for just a
year or five -- would drive anyone into paranoid psychosis. Just like with
the tewwowist thweat.
>> May the LORD help us all to face the great tribulation when the Lamb
>> opens the 6th seal **possibly** in less than a few months (03/29/06), in
>> Jesus' most precious and holy name.
>
> **emphasis** added
>
>> Amen !!!
>>
>> ==== end qoute
<snip malformed .sig>
You are a spamming weasel of a quack. You should be in prison, and
completely disgraced.
--
________________________________________________________________________
Hail Eris!
Demon Prince of Absurdity
COOSN-029-06-71069
Looney Maroon nominee for August 2006 Johnny D Wentzky foamed:
"You never asked someone who goes into areas of the internet that are
only for adults who has an underage id somehow or another if they are a
cop posing as an underage person online?
I guess lots of people just don't watch dateline or read stories much.
Why don;t you go to pervertedjustice,com and see what they do. They are
awash in their self-proclaimed glory after they lied to membners of the
public.
They are awash in their self-proclaimed glory after they posed as an
underage person and agreed to do all sorts of sex acts wioth adult
males, and they are adults posing as teenager themselves. They make
themsleves into liars by falsely impersonating underage persons and by
not fuilfilling the words they tell the victims online in their chats.
Why don't you read it where they tell these victims of their deceit
about how they have been with grown men and such? Why don't you read it
where they say, "That would be cool." after someone makes an advance
towards an adult who is posing as a teenager? And, where they agree to
meet the person, etc.
Lost control, didn't you?
Is that why you feel as if you need to lie so much now? I see where lots
of these false impersonation games are not sticking. They feel as if
they can lie and then order the victims to get counseling in the
gayblade, governmental, pro-choice tax leech counseling centers. They
are doing nothing more than usury and fraud in many cases." -- Wentzky
almost comes out of the closet as a pedo/ephebophile in MID:
<H%%Eg.28916$Uq1....@bignews6.bellsouth.net>
Cardinal Snarky of the Fannish Inquisition
Chaire, and didst finally confess, after taking Muche Tea:
<poke>
Werner -the Christian Agnostic- Kurator
in <1158145447.2...@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>
on 2006-09-13 announced this statement:
> Werner -the Christian Agnostic- Kurator wrote:
>> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
>> in <1157938073....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
>> on 2006-09-11 announced this statement:
>> > "An agnostic is a closet atheist." -- Holy Spirit
>>
>> Does this come from the "same" "Holy Spirit" who told you this:
>
> "With GOD all things are possible" (Matthew 19:26)
Yeah like a "Spirit filled" person not knowing who Christ
was/is...
>
>> From nos...@heartmdphd.com Thu Jan 19 15:25:20 2006
>> From: "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <nos...@heartmdphd.com>
>> Subject: Re: Forward your concerns to the European Baptist Federation
>> Date: 19 Jan 2006 05:34:45 -0800
>> Message-ID: <1137677685....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
>>
>> <CUT>
>>
>> David Matthieu P.P. wrote:
>> > Private E-mails that were sent to the Baptist Pastor Lothar
>> > Lessee have been published on several Usenet Public Newsgroups
>> > with the intent to denigrate and vilify a Poster regarding her
>> > sexual Orientation.
>>
>> The **possible** global devastation on 3/29/2006 should be a greater
>> concern for all.
>
> **emphasis** added.
You changed the *original* by emphasizing it *NOW*. The above was
not *my* quote Andrew. Yet you *quoted* me, and changed the
quoted text.
In the *original* you didn't emphasize the portion I was
quoting. You are showing your dishonesty yet again.
Yet in the OT prophecies, and in the book of "revelation" one
doesn't find the words *possible*, *perhaps* *most likely* or
some such *vague* predictions. The *PROPHETS* where very clear.
Some-one posted a link to a website where another
*FUNDAMENTALIST* proclaimed nuclear war starting with 12.09.06.
Funny didn't happen... Maybe Andrew you should join one of these
sects which hold that "Christ" came back, like the *MOONIES*
they too think that their leader is the second coming of
"Christ". I'm sure they can twist the Bible to that end, giving
it this meaning....
<cut>
>
> Andrew <><
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ in MHO a wanna-be Christian... but his antics
show something different... Maybe Andrew is a closet "JW", they
too like to *predict* the *possible* dates of devastation and
the return of "Christ"....
LOL
Don't come back with:
"written laughter is silent despair", I've got your number on
that one too, Andrew :-)
Here is the quote as posted *originally.
From nos...@heartmdphd.com Thu Jan 19 15:25:20 2006
From: "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <nos...@heartmdphd.com>
Subject: Re: Forward your concerns to the European Baptist Federation
Date: 19 Jan 2006 05:34:45 -0800
Message-ID: <1137677685....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
<CUT>
David Matthieu P.P. wrote:
> Private E-mails that were sent to the Baptist Pastor Lothar
> Lessee have been published on several Usenet Public Newsgroups
> with the intent to denigrate and vilify a Poster regarding her
> sexual Orientation.
The possible global devastation on 3/29/2006 should be a greater
concern for all.
May the LORD help us all to face the great tribulation when the
Lamb opens the 6th seal possibly in less than a few months
(03/29/06), in Jesus' most precious and holy name.
Amen !!!
==== end quote
Werner Kurator
June 1978
Fanta _looks_ orange, but tastes of the bastard child of
a sugar cane plantation and a Dow plant.
-- Richard Bos in ASR
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> > Werner -the Christian Agnostic- Kurator wrote:
> >> > "An agnostic is a closet atheist." -- Holy Spirit
> >>
> >> Does this come from the "same" "Holy Spirit" who told you this:
> >
> > "With GOD all things are possible" (Matthew 19:26)
>
> Yeah like a "Spirit filled" person not knowing who Christ
> was/is...
As it is written, gifts from the Holy Spirit vary from one person to
the next.
Werner -the Christian Agnostic- Kurator
in <1158188753....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
> Werner -the Christian Agnostic- Kurator wrote:
>> Andrew wrote:
>> > Werner -the Christian Agnostic- Kurator wrote:
>> >> Andrew wrote:
>> >> > "An agnostic is a closet atheist." -- Holy Spirit
>> >>
>> >> Does this come from the "same" "Holy Spirit" who told you
>> >> this:
>> >
>> > "With GOD all things are possible" (Matthew 19:26)
>>
>> Yeah like a "Spirit filled" person not knowing who Christ
>> was/is...
>
> As it is written, gifts from the Holy Spirit vary from one
> person to the next.
LOL, YET, these people all *would* know who Jesus was/is.
The person I'm talking about didn't.
I discern from your tapdance that you don't want to deal with
this particular problem, but are unwilling to say so.
<cut>
>
> May GOD continue to keep your heart beating, dear neighbor
And I told you I don't care if God calls me home tomorrow.
>
>
> Andrew <><
June 1978
"A drug is neither moral nor immoral-it's a chemical compound. The
compound itself is not a menace to society until a human being treats
it as if consumption bestowed a temporary license to act like an
asshole." -- Frank Zappa
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew wrote:
> > Werner -the Christian Agnostic- Kurator wrote:
> >> Andrew wrote:
> >> > Werner -the Christian Agnostic- Kurator wrote:
> >> >> Andrew wrote:
> >> >> > "An agnostic is a closet atheist." -- Holy Spirit
> >> >>
> >> >> Does this come from the "same" "Holy Spirit" who told you
> >> >> this:
> >> >
> >> > "With GOD all things are possible" (Matthew 19:26)
> >>
> >> Yeah like a "Spirit filled" person not knowing who Christ
> >> was/is...
> >
> > As it is written, gifts from the Holy Spirit vary from one
> > person to the next.
>
> LOL
"Written laughter is silent despair." -- Holy Spirit
May GOD continue to keep your heart beating to give you time to find
the way, dear neighbor Werner whom I love unconditionally.
Werner -the Christian Agnostic- Kurator
in <1158275885.8...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
on 2006-09-14 announced this statement:
> Werner -the Christian Agnostic- Kurator wrote:
>> Andrew wrote:
>> > Werner -the Christian Agnostic- Kurator wrote:
>> >> Andrew wrote:
>> >> > Werner -the Christian Agnostic- Kurator wrote:
>> >> >> Andrew wrote:
>> >> >> > "An agnostic is a closet atheist." -- Holy Spirit
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Does this come from the "same" "Holy Spirit" who told you
>> >> >> this:
>> >> >
>> >> > "With GOD all things are possible" (Matthew 19:26)
>> >>
>> >> Yeah like a "Spirit filled" person not knowing who Christ
>> >> was/is...
>> >
>> > As it is written, gifts from the Holy Spirit vary from one
>> > person to the next.
>>
>> LOL
>
> "Written laughter is silent despair." -- Holy Spirit
Ahem, you used this *quote* for over a year, yet you didn't
attribute it to the Holy Spirit, another indication that you
make things up as you go along.
Just one example:
=== quote
Path: g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!newsread.com!news-xfer.newsread.com!logbridge.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!sn-xit-03!sn-xit-08!sn-post-01!supernews.com!news.supernews.com!not-for-mail
From: "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com>
Newsgroups: sci.med.cardiology
Subject: Re: Good to see you back Andrew
Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 14:32:32 -0400
Organization: http://www.heartmdphd.com
Message-ID: <435BD740...@heartmdphd.com>
Reply-To: cardiologi...@heartmdphd.com
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <4349bb5c$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au> <3127799.n...@192.168.1.1> <7utjk1h2eq1k7r17d...@4ax.com> <434a1904$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au> <11kks19...@corp.supernews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: ab...@supernews.com
Lines: 35
"Bob (this one)" wrote:
>
> wazzad wrote:
>
> > Amen John
> > God bless you.
> > Cheers
> > Ron
>
> <LOL>
Written laughter is silent despair.
> And so it starts again...
Lord Jesus makes everything new.
In Christ's love and service forevermore,
Andrew
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
===== end quote
No attribution to the Holy Spirit there...
<big grin>
Fact is you can't come up with a really satisfying answer to
the point: If John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit
from his mothers womb, why did he need a sign from God to know
that his "cousin" who brought a baptism even John needed.
You failed (not even attempted) to prove that "Thomas" the Jew
was a *atheist*. Because if he were, he couldn't have followed
Jesus for 3 years.
And if my time's up, then I will leave this planet regardless of
your prayers or feigned good wishes, just like Terry Shiavo left
it *IN SPITE* THE many prayers spoken on her behalf.....
May the Ground of all our being "God" finally start to heal your
heart and soul (since you need healing like the rest of us
humans desperately ) my most beloved brother Andrew....
>
>
> Andrew <><
<cut botched up Sig>
June 1978
Challenged - crippled.
-- Uncle Al
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
It remains my choice to continue to receive the guidance of the Holy
Spirit in everything I say, do, and write.
>
> Fact is you can't come up with a really satisfying answer to
> the point: If John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit
> from his mothers womb, why did he need a sign from God to know
> that his "cousin" who brought a baptism even John needed.
His speech is for the benefit of those who have not received the Holy
Spirit, so that they would understand his place relative to the
Messiah, Who is LORD Jesus Christ.
> You failed (not even attempted) to prove that "Thomas" the Jew
> was a *atheist*. Because if he were, he couldn't have followed
> Jesus for 3 years.
Judas Iscariot worshipped money and yet also followed Jesus for the
same length of time as "Doubting" Thomas. Indeed, Thomas was one of
the few willing to follow Jesus back into Jerusalem but he expressed
this willingness along with the expectation of dying with Jesus. The
latter is yet another indication that though he had accepted Jesus as
his leader (i.e. lord), he had not accepted Jesus as GOD prior to
witnessing that HE had indeed risen.
> And if my time's up, then I will leave this planet regardless of
> your prayers or feigned good wishes, just like Terry Shiavo left
> it *IN SPITE* THE many prayers spoken on her behalf.....
GOD is able to change HIS mind (Jonah).
HIS will be done and not my will.
> May the Ground of all our being "God" finally start to heal your
> heart and soul (since you need healing like the rest of us
> humans desperately ) my most beloved brother Andrew....
Many thanks and praises to GOD for your kind words.
May GOD continue to keep your heart beating to give you the time you
need to find the way, dear neighbor Werner whom I love unconditionally.
Werner -the Christian Agnostic- Kurator
in <1158308256.5...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
on 2006-09-15 announced this statement:
Alas I doubt it very much that you get any guidance by the Holy
Spirit, you show little fruits of that.
>
>>
>> Fact is you can't come up with a really satisfying answer to
>> the point: If John the Baptist was filled with the Holy
>> Spirit from his mothers womb, why did he need a sign from God
>> to know that his "cousin" who brought a baptism even John
>> needed.
>
> His speech is for the benefit of those who have not received
> the Holy Spirit, so that they would understand his place
> relative to the Messiah, Who is LORD Jesus Christ.
John 1 31 And *I* (John/t/Baptist) knew him not: but that he
should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing
with water.
32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit
descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.
33 And *I* (John/t/Baptist) knew him not: but he that sent me
to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou
shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same
is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.
So if you are wrong about this minor detail, what else you are
wrong..... But you are guided by the "Holy Spirit". How funny
that thought is. Just hilarious Andrew, thanks for the laugh.
It's a shame that you think that you are testifying to Jesus,
while I see the opposite of it taking place, people *turning*
away from your testimony...
<cut>
June 1978
"I *failed* the Turing test?!?"
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Without the LORD, your opinion is meaningless (Ecclesiastes).
> >> Fact is you can't come up with a really satisfying answer to
> >> the point: If John the Baptist was filled with the Holy
> >> Spirit from his mothers womb, why did he need a sign from God
> >> to know that his "cousin" who brought a baptism even John
> >> needed.
> >
> > His speech is for the benefit of those who have not received
> > the Holy Spirit, so that they would understand his place
> > relative to the Messiah, Who is LORD Jesus Christ.
>
>
> John 1 31 And *I* (John/t/Baptist) knew him not: but that he
> should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing
> with water.
>
> 32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit
> descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.
>
> 33 And *I* (John/t/Baptist) knew him not: but he that sent me
> to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou
> shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same
> is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.
Here is John the Baptist's entire speech:
"Look, the Lamb of GOD, who takes away the sin of the world! This is
the ONE I meant when I said, 'A Man who comes after me has surpassed me
because HE was before me.' I myself did not know HIM, but the reason I
came baptizing with water was that HE might be revealed to Israel. I
saw the Spirit come down from heaven as a dove and remain on HIM. I
would not have known HIM, except that the ONE who sent me to baptize
with water told me, 'The Man on whom you see the Spirit come down and
remain is HE who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.' I have seen and I
testify that this is the Son of GOD." (John 1:29-34)
Clearly, John the Baptist is giving the credit to GOD for his knowledge
that Jesus is the Lamb of GOD by his saying "I **myself** did not know
HIM" because it is with the Holy Spirit, that he knows Jesus to be the
Son of GOD. This is affirmed by his restating that GOD is the source
of his knowledge of Jesus in saying "I would not have known HIM, except
that the ONE who sent me to baptize with water told me."
> So if you are wrong about this minor detail, what else you are
> wrong..... But you are guided by the "Holy Spirit". How funny
> that thought is. Just hilarious Andrew, thanks for the laugh.
Sorry to spoil your laugh. Please forgive all my iniquities.
> It's a shame that you think that you are testifying to Jesus,
> while I see the opposite of it taking place, people *turning*
> away from your testimony...
There can be no greater praise from an agnostic for a born-again
Christian than what you have written. It remains my choice to redirect
this praise to GOD before it becomes a snare for me. HE is the Source
of all the blessings in this world.
May GOD continue to keep your heart beating so you will have the time
you need to find the truth, dear neighbor Werner whom I love
Werner -the Christian Agnostic- Kurator
in <1158360997....@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>
> Werner -the Christian Agnostic- Kurator wrote:
Quote the *exact* passage. If you can't then you just express
your very own ideas, and ASSumptions.
Fact is (and no trying to divert the attention away from it)
*you* did NOT claim *authorship of the "Holy Spirit" for the
statement "written laughter is silent despair".
OK, there are of course a couple of issues I want to address.
First of all can you name *first-century* *JEWISH* THINKERS who
taught that the "Messiah" will carry the sins of the people?
"Saul/Paul" or other *Christians* who was a apostate Jews
doesn't count.
Secondly *who* supposedly *heard* this? It sure wasn't
*John/G/A* as he wasn't present at all. All this took place
*before* Jesus even started to call anybody to follow him.
>
> Clearly, John the Baptist is giving the credit to GOD for his
> knowledge that Jesus is the Lamb of GOD by his saying "I
> **myself** did not know HIM" because it is with the Holy
> Spirit, that he knows Jesus to be the Son of GOD. This is
> affirmed by his restating that GOD is the source of his
> knowledge of Jesus in saying "I would not have known HIM,
> except that the ONE who sent me to baptize with water told
> me."
Yep, lets not forget something else here (you ignore) John was
*FILLED* WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT, since the days of his birth (and
before).
Luke 1
15 For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and
shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be
filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.
OK now according to John/G/A we have established that John/t/B
didn't know who *THE* Christ was. So how come that the person
who was filled with the Holy Spirit didn't know who the Son of
God is! this creates the scenario, that God had to tell his own
Holy Spirit by another *Holy Spirit* who Jesus was. Another
*hilarious* scene for the "Monty Python gang" I'm sure!
So God the Father tells the person who has his Holy Spirit, I'll
give you a special *sign*!
Matthew 3
13 Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to
be baptized of him.
14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized
of thee, and comest thou to me?
Matthew 3
17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved
Son, in whom I am well pleased.
What? *BEFORE* John/t/B saw the dove and heard the voice
(something John/G/A lets drop from the text) he knew that Jesus
would be baptizing people.
Matthew 3
11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he
that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am
not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy
Ghost, and with fire:
So by all means we have now *contradictions* established between
two "Gospel Authors" one John/t/B not knowing, while in the
other he *knew* that Jesus was having a baptism John/t/B needed
too.
>
>> So if you are wrong about this minor detail, what else you
>> are wrong..... But you are guided by the "Holy Spirit". How
>> funny that thought is. Just hilarious Andrew, thanks for the
>> laugh.
>
> Sorry to spoil your laugh. Please forgive all my iniquities.
First you would have to know that I stopped laughing. :-)
So the above by you is just a expression of your wishful
thinking.
>
>> It's a shame that you think that you are testifying to Jesus,
>> while I see the opposite of it taking place, people *turning*
>> away from your testimony...
>
> There can be no greater praise from an agnostic for a
> born-again Christian than what you have written. It remains
> my choice to redirect this praise to GOD before it becomes a
> snare for me. HE is the Source of all the blessings in this
> world.
Where is the praise in my reply? You create a straw-men.....
And the curses as well Andrew, don't forget God's curses too.
>
> May GOD continue to keep your heart beating so you will have
> the time you need to find the truth, dear neighbor Werner whom
> I love unconditionally.
"Your opinion and your wishes for my future are
*meaningless*" <-- paraphrased reply by Andrew
>
> Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love,
Who was acting on the orders of God his Father.
<cut botched up Sig by Andrew>
June 1978
flimflam: eating just means you have to drink more to get the same effect
-- jgaddis
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
This is a Holy Spirit-led understanding of Ecclesiastes.
> If you can't then you just express your very own ideas, and ASSumptions.
An understanding is not a quotation.
> Fact is (and no trying to divert the attention away from it)
> *you* did NOT claim *authorship of the "Holy Spirit" for the
> statement "written laughter is silent despair".
The Holy Spirit is the Source of the quote.
Many have asked for the source of the quote in the past as archived in
Google and you will find each time that I did not name the source until
now.
The thoughts of those who are without the LORD are meaningless
(Ecclesiastes).
> Secondly *who* supposedly *heard* this? It sure wasn't
> *John/G/A* as he wasn't present at all. All this took place
> *before* Jesus even started to call anybody to follow him.
John the Baptist's disciples were with him.
"The next day John was there again with two of his disciples. When he
saw Jesus passing by, he said, 'Look, the Lamb of GOD!'" (John 1:35).
> > Clearly, John the Baptist is giving the credit to GOD for his
> > knowledge that Jesus is the Lamb of GOD by his saying "I
> > **myself** did not know HIM" because it is with the Holy
Note **emphasis** that the Holy Spirit guided me to make anticipating
your strong delusion below.
> > Spirit, that he knows Jesus to be the Son of GOD. This is
> > affirmed by his restating that GOD is the source of his
> > knowledge of Jesus in saying "I would not have known HIM,
> > except that the ONE who sent me to baptize with water told
> > me."
>
> Yep, lets not forget something else here (you ignore) John was
> *FILLED* WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT, since the days of his birth (and
> before).
Yes, the Holy Spirit was guiding John the Baptist and compelling him to
testify as described above.
> Luke 1
>
> 15 For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and
> shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be
> filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.
>
> OK now according to John/G/A we have established that John/t/B
> didn't know who *THE* Christ was.
He did not know the Christ by **himself** but by GOD.
See **emphasis** above that was placed BEFORE you revealed your strong
delusion.
> So how come that the person
> who was filled with the Holy Spirit didn't know who the Son of
> God is!
This serves to teach that we are not born with such knowledge but that
such knowledge of Christ comes only from GOD the Holy Spirit. This is
reiterated when Simon Peter correctly answered Jesus' question "Who do
you say I am?" and Jesus stated that his answer could only come from
GOD.
> this creates the scenario, that God had to tell his own
> Holy Spirit by another *Holy Spirit* who Jesus was. Another
> *hilarious* scene for the "Monty Python gang" I'm sure!
Again, sorry to spoil your fun again. Please forgive all my
iniquities.
> So God the Father tells the person who has his Holy Spirit, I'll
> give you a special *sign*!
No. The GOD the Holy Spirit gave John the Baptist an understanding of
what he was witnessing.
"It is my heavenly Father's job to judge, the Holy Spirit's job to
convict, and my job to love." - Reverend Billy Graham
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Christ.asp
> Matthew 3
> 13 Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to
> be baptized of him.
> 14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized
> of thee, and comest thou to me?
>
> Matthew 3
> 17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved
> Son, in whom I am well pleased.
>
> What? *BEFORE* John/t/B saw the dove and heard the voice
> (something John/G/A lets drop from the text) he knew that Jesus
> would be baptizing people.
Correct. See above understanding of John 1:29-34 aided by the counsel
(see **emphasis**) of the Holy Spirit.
> Matthew 3
> 11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he
> that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am
> not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy
> Ghost, and with fire:
>
> So by all means we have now *contradictions* established between
> two "Gospel Authors" one John/t/B not knowing, while in the
> other he *knew* that Jesus was having a baptism John/t/B needed
> too.
There is no contradiction for those with hearts made discerning by the
Holy Spirit.
Again, see above Holy Spirit-led understanding of John 1:29-34.
> >> So if you are wrong about this minor detail, what else you
> >> are wrong..... But you are guided by the "Holy Spirit". How
> >> funny that thought is. Just hilarious Andrew, thanks for the
> >> laugh.
> >
> > Sorry to spoil your laugh. Please forgive all my iniquities.
>
> First you would have to know that I stopped laughing. :-)
In the Holy Spirit, I know.
> So the above by you is just a expression of your wishful
> thinking.
You are projecting.
> >> It's a shame that you think that you are testifying to Jesus,
> >> while I see the opposite of it taking place, people *turning*
> >> away from your testimony...
> >
> > There can be no greater praise from an agnostic for a
> > born-again Christian than what you have written. It remains
> > my choice to redirect this praise to GOD before it becomes a
> > snare for me. HE is the Source of all the blessings in this
> > world.
>
> Where is the praise in my reply?
The praise is in your claim that you see people turned away by what the
Holy Spirit has guided me to write.
> You create a straw-men.....
I am not the Creator.
> And the curses as well Andrew, don't forget God's curses too.
In Christ, I can.
> > May GOD continue to keep your heart beating so you will have
> > the time you need to find the truth, dear neighbor Werner whom
> > I love unconditionally.
>
> "Your opinion and your wishes for my future are
> *meaningless*" <-- paraphrased reply by Andrew
Prayer is neither opinion nor a wish.
> >
> > Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love,
>
> Who was acting on the orders of God his Father.
Who is LORD and GOD.
"KING of kings and LORD of lords." (Revelation 19:16)
May GOD continue to keep your heart beating so that you will have time
to find the way, dear neighbor Werner whom I love unconditionally.
Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love,
Andrew <><
Werner -the Christian Agnostic- Kurator
in <1158408866.0...@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>
on 2006-09-16 announced this statement:
<cut>
>> >> >> >> >> >> > "An agnostic is a closet atheist." -- Holy
>> >> >> >> >> >> > Spirit
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> Does this come from the "same" "Holy Spirit"
>> >> >> >> >> >> who told you this:
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> > "With GOD all things are possible" (Matthew
>> >> >> >> >> > 19:26)
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Yeah like a "Spirit filled" person not knowing
>> >> >> >> >> who Christ was/is...
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > As it is written, gifts from the Holy Spirit vary
>> >> >> >> > from one person to the next.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> LOL
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > "Written laughter is silent despair." -- Holy Spirit
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Ahem, you used this *quote* for over a year, yet you
>> >> >> didn't attribute it to the Holy Spirit, another
>> >> >> indication that you make things up as you go along.
>> >> >>
<cut>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> No attribution to the Holy Spirit there...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> <big grin>
>> >> >
>> >> > It remains my choice to continue to receive the guidance
>> >> > of the Holy Spirit in everything I say, do, and write.
>> >>
>> >> Alas I doubt it very much that you get any guidance by the
>> >> Holy Spirit, you show little fruits of that.
>> >
>> > Without the LORD, your opinion is meaningless
>> > (Ecclesiastes).
>>
>> Quote the *exact* passage.
>
> This is a Holy Spirit-led understanding of Ecclesiastes.
>
>> If you can't then you just express your very own ideas, and
>> ASSumptions.
>
> An understanding is not a quotation.
>
>> Fact is (and no trying to divert the attention away from it)
>> *you* did NOT claim *authorship of the "Holy Spirit" for the
>> statement "written laughter is silent despair".
>
> The Holy Spirit is the Source of the quote.
So you *claim*
Your claims are meaningless to me. This is what I get from
Ecclesiastes.
>
> Many have asked for the source of the quote in the past as
> archived in Google and you will find each time that I did not
> name the source until now.
Which means that you made up the claim just recently, would be
the plain truth.
Ahem, the issue is not me, the issue is John/t/Baptist, so stick
to the point, if this is possible....
>
>> Secondly *who* supposedly *heard* this? It sure wasn't
>> *John/G/A* as he wasn't present at all. All this took place
>> *before* Jesus even started to call anybody to follow him.
>
> John the Baptist's disciples were with him.
Does this in any way change what I said that none of Jesus
disciples were there? and if so how? Fact is that it is
*hearsay* what John, Luke, Matthew or Mark penned, *before* the
disciples ever met Jesus. Hope you get the point, if not just
ask and I'll explain in even simpler terms.
>
> "The next day John was there again with two of his disciples.
> When he saw Jesus passing by, he said, 'Look, the Lamb of
> GOD!'" (John 1:35).
>
>> > Clearly, John the Baptist is giving the credit to GOD for
>> > his knowledge that Jesus is the Lamb of GOD by his saying
>> > "I **myself** did not know HIM" because it is with the Holy
>
> Note **emphasis** that the Holy Spirit guided me to make
> anticipating your strong delusion below.
The delusion you think you see is only in your head, but read
along...
>
>> > Spirit, that he knows Jesus to be the Son of GOD. This is
>> > affirmed by his restating that GOD is the source of his
>> > knowledge of Jesus in saying "I would not have known HIM,
>> > except that the ONE who sent me to baptize with water told
>> > me."
>>
>> Yep, lets not forget something else here (you ignore) John
>> was *FILLED* WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT, since the days of his
>> birth (and before).
>
> Yes, the Holy Spirit was guiding John the Baptist and
> compelling him to testify as described above.
>
>> Luke 1
>>
>> 15 For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and
>> shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be
>> filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.
>>
>> OK now according to John/G/A we have established that
>> John/t/B didn't know who *THE* Christ was.
>
> He did not know the Christ by **himself** but by GOD.
Yeah supposedly filled with the Holy Spirit from the time if his
birth.
>
> See **emphasis** above that was placed BEFORE you revealed your strong
> delusion.
Your opinion about me is useless.
>
>> So how come that the person who was filled with the Holy
>> Spirit didn't know who the Son of God is!
>
> This serves to teach that we are not born with such knowledge
> but that such knowledge of Christ comes only from GOD the Holy
> Spirit. This is reiterated when Simon Peter correctly
> answered Jesus' question "Who do you say I am?" and Jesus
> stated that his answer could only come from GOD.
So the "God the HOLY Spirit" is at the same time God the Father?
Matthew 16
15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ,
the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou,
Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto
thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
So Jesus here says that God the Father *revealed* this to truth
to Peter, and not the God the *HOLY SPIRIT*.
But of course in reality "Matthew" might have gotten it wrong,
and the *HOLY SPIRIT* is using you to point out the errors crept
into the Bible when "Holy Spirit/God/Jesus" *INSPIRED* THE
GOSPEL-AUTHORS....
Nice diverting away from the point, I'm not talking about us, or
Peter but about John/t/B. John/t/B said he didn't know who
Christ was/is *before* he saw the sign. You can invent all
excuses now, to make this contradiction go away, but you will
fail.
>
>> this creates the scenario, that God had to tell his own Holy
>> Spirit by another *Holy Spirit* who Jesus was. Another
>> *hilarious* scene for the "Monty Python gang" I'm sure!
>
> Again, sorry to spoil your fun again. Please forgive all my
> iniquities.
I'm, still having fun with your tap-dance so to say.
>
>> So God the Father tells the person who has his Holy Spirit,
>> I'll give you a special *sign*!
>
> No. The GOD the Holy Spirit gave John the Baptist an
> understanding of what he was witnessing.
Hilarious the same Holy Spirit tells himself I'll give me a sign?
Of course with your claim that the "Holy Spirit" is teaching
you, you can invent all kind of funny scenarios.
>
> "It is my heavenly Father's job to judge, the Holy Spirit's
> job to convict, and my job to love." - Reverend Billy Graham
And you find the words of Billy Graham in the Bible at which
pages?
>
>
>> Matthew 3 13 Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto
>> John, to be baptized of him. 14 But John forbad him, saying,
>> I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?
>>
>> Matthew 3 17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my
>> beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
>>
>> What? *BEFORE* John/t/B saw the dove and heard the voice
>> (something John/G/A lets drop from the text) he knew that
>> Jesus would be baptizing people.
>
> Correct. See above understanding of John 1:29-34 aided by the
> counsel (see **emphasis**) of the Holy Spirit.
You don't grasp the time-frame of all this?
John doesn't know who Christ was/is this is what he says.
Yet Matthew claims John/t/B knew that Jesus was more then just a
carpenter, the very same who brings a baptism John needs.
>
>> Matthew 3 11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance:
>> but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I
>> am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy
>> Ghost, and with fire:
>>
>> So by all means we have now *contradictions* established
>> between two "Gospel Authors" one John/t/B not knowing, while
>> in the other he *knew* that Jesus was having a baptism
>> John/t/B needed too.
>
> There is no contradiction for those with hearts made
> discerning by the Holy Spirit.
I prefer to think with my head "Dr. Hilarious", as my heart is a
muscle pumping blood through my body...
>
> Again, see above Holy Spirit-led understanding of John
> 1:29-34.
Is this the same Holy Spirit that needed a sign from himself to
know that Jesus is the Christ?
>
>> >> So if you are wrong about this minor detail, what else you
>> >> are wrong..... But you are guided by the "Holy Spirit".
>> >> How funny that thought is. Just hilarious Andrew, thanks
>> >> for the laugh.
>> >
>> > Sorry to spoil your laugh. Please forgive all my
>> > iniquities.
>>
>> First you would have to know that I stopped laughing. :-)
>
> In the Holy Spirit, I know.
Then tell him he doesn't know it, and is giving you false
information....
>
>> So the above by you is just a expression of your wishful
>> thinking.
>
> You are projecting.
Sorry this is the *impression* you give me here.
Nope, I don't project (in fact no need to do so) this is a
logical thinking mans conclusion when reading your post.
>
>> >> It's a shame that you think that you are testifying to
>> >> Jesus, while I see the opposite of it taking place, people
>> >> *turning* away from your testimony...
>> >
>> > There can be no greater praise from an agnostic for a
>> > born-again Christian than what you have written. It
>> > remains my choice to redirect this praise to GOD before it
>> > becomes a snare for me. HE is the Source of all the
>> > blessings in this world.
>>
>> Where is the praise in my reply?
>
> The praise is in your claim that you see people turned away by
> what the Holy Spirit has guided me to write.
Fact is not even many Christians here seem to agree with your
claims....
>
>> You create a straw-men.....
>
> I am not the Creator.
Of straw-men yes, you are.
>
>> And the curses as well Andrew, don't forget God's curses too.
>
> In Christ, I can.
If God would forget the curses, then there wouldn't be eternal
punishment...
>
>> > May GOD continue to keep your heart beating so you will have
>> > the time you need to find the truth, dear neighbor Werner whom
>> > I love unconditionally.
>>
>> "Your opinion and your wishes for my future are
>> *meaningless*" <-- paraphrased reply by Andrew
>
> Prayer is neither opinion nor a wish.
Matter of opinion.
>
>> >
>> > Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love,
>>
>> Who was acting on the orders of God his Father.
>
> Who is LORD and GOD.
>
> "KING of kings and LORD of lords." (Revelation 19:16)
Revelation 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto
him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass;
and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:
:-)
You notice the chain, "Dr Hilarious"?
First step:
God gave the revelation to Jesus; which means of
course that Jesus isn't the *all-knowing* God either, otherwise
the "Son of God" wouldn't need a "revelation" from his Father
God. After all if Jesus was God since time immortal, he would
share *all* knowledge God has.
Second step: Jesus passes it on to an Angel;
Third step: the Angel appears to John, telling him the words of
Jesus and God.
> May GOD continue to keep your heart beating so that you will
> have time to find the way, dear neighbor Werner whom I love
> unconditionally.
Don't worry about me finding the *way*, as I'm typing my responses
here at home...
>
> Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love,
Which is a expression of God's love *FIRST*
>
> Andrew <><
<cut Andrew's misconfigured SIG-line>
I sure hope the *HOLY SPIRIT* WOULD help you in these matters...
June 1978
You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some
of the time -- that should be enough for most purposes
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
< read, noted, and snipped>
> Andrew wrote:
> > Many have asked for the source of the quote in the past as
> > archived in Google and you will find each time that I did not
> > name the source until now.
>
> Which means that you made up the claim just recently, would be
> the plain truth.
Not for the discerning.
Correct.
> , the issue is John/t/Baptist
Actually, the issue is not about John the Baptist but about "Doubting"
Thomas the Archetypal Agnostic Christian:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/16738ced00bb5247?
> , so stick to the point, if this is possible....
In truth, you have been distracted by John the Baptist and his being
guided by the Holy Spirit and thus, you have been the reason for the
digression.
> >
> >> Secondly *who* supposedly *heard* this? It sure wasn't
> >> *John/G/A* as he wasn't present at all. All this took place
> >> *before* Jesus even started to call anybody to follow him.
> >
> > John the Baptist's disciples were with him.
>
> Does this in any way change what I said that none of Jesus
> disciples were there?
No.
GOD has caused you to forget that Andrew was **both** John the
Baptist's and later Jesus' disciple **and** one of the two disciples
who witnessed the speech.
This act by GOD is all the more amazing in light of the fact that HE
named me Andrew to underscore the strength of the delusion HE has
placed in your mind.
> and if so how?
GOD is indeed omnipotent.
> Fact is that it is
> *hearsay* what John, Luke, Matthew or Mark penned, *before* the
> disciples ever met Jesus. Hope you get the point, if not just
> ask and I'll explain in even simpler terms.
It seems you believe that mere mortals can change the Word of GOD.
In truth, it is the Word of GOD Who changes mortals and not the other
way around.
> > "The next day John was there again with two of his disciples.
> > When he saw Jesus passing by, he said, 'Look, the Lamb of
> > GOD!'" (John 1:35).
> >
> >> > Clearly, John the Baptist is giving the credit to GOD for
> >> > his knowledge that Jesus is the Lamb of GOD by his saying
> >> > "I **myself** did not know HIM" because it is with the Holy
> >
> > Note **emphasis** that the Holy Spirit guided me to make
> > anticipating your strong delusion below.
>
> The delusion you think you see is only in your head, but read
> along...
The strong delusion that GOD has placed in your mind remains obvious to
the most casual observer.
> >
> >> > Spirit, that he knows Jesus to be the Son of GOD. This is
> >> > affirmed by his restating that GOD is the source of his
> >> > knowledge of Jesus in saying "I would not have known HIM,
> >> > except that the ONE who sent me to baptize with water told
> >> > me."
> >>
> >> Yep, lets not forget something else here (you ignore) John
> >> was *FILLED* WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT, since the days of his
> >> birth (and before).
> >
> > Yes, the Holy Spirit was guiding John the Baptist and
> > compelling him to testify as described above.
> >
> >> Luke 1
> >>
> >> 15 For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and
> >> shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be
> >> filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.
> >>
> >> OK now according to John/G/A we have established that
> >> John/t/B didn't know who *THE* Christ was.
> >
> > He did not know the Christ by **himself** but by GOD.
>
> Yeah supposedly filled with the Holy Spirit from the time if his
> birth.
Yes, even in utero, John the Baptist was aware of the Source of his
knowledge about Christ Jesus.
> > See **emphasis** above that was placed BEFORE you revealed your strong
> > delusion.
>
> Your opinion about me is useless.
Observation is not opinion.
> >
> >> So how come that the person who was filled with the Holy
> >> Spirit didn't know who the Son of God is!
> >
> > This serves to teach that we are not born with such knowledge
> > but that such knowledge of Christ comes only from GOD the Holy
> > Spirit. This is reiterated when Simon Peter correctly
> > answered Jesus' question "Who do you say I am?" and Jesus
> > stated that his answer could only come from GOD.
>
> So the "God the HOLY Spirit" is at the same time God the Father?
"The Father is in ME just as I am in the Father." -- Holy Spirit
> Matthew 16
> 15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
> 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ,
> the Son of the living God.
> 17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou,
> Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto
> thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
> So Jesus here says that God the Father *revealed* this to truth
> to Peter, and not the God the *HOLY SPIRIT*.
See above.
> But of course in reality "Matthew" might have gotten it wrong,
> and the *HOLY SPIRIT* is using you to point out the errors crept
> into the Bible when "Holy Spirit/God/Jesus" *INSPIRED* THE
> GOSPEL-AUTHORS....
The Bible remains holy.
> Nice diverting away from the point, I'm not talking about us, or
> Peter but about John/t/B. John/t/B said he didn't know who
> Christ was/is *before* he saw the sign. You can invent all
> excuses now, to make this contradiction go away, but you will
> fail.
Without the Holy Spirit, you will always be a false prophet.
> >> this creates the scenario, that God had to tell his own Holy
> >> Spirit by another *Holy Spirit* who Jesus was. Another
> >> *hilarious* scene for the "Monty Python gang" I'm sure!
> >
> > Again, sorry to spoil your fun again. Please forgive all my
> > iniquities.
>
> I'm, still having fun with your tap-dance so to say.
That is not what I discern.
> >> So God the Father tells the person who has his Holy Spirit,
> >> I'll give you a special *sign*!
> >
> > No. GOD the Holy Spirit gave John the Baptist an
> > understanding of what he was witnessing.
>
> Hilarious the same Holy Spirit tells himself I'll give me a sign?
No.
> Of course with your claim that the "Holy Spirit" is teaching
> you, you can invent all kind of funny scenarios.
It remains my choice to continue to accept the guidance of the Holy
Spirit in everything I say, do, and write.
> > "It is my heavenly Father's job to judge, the Holy Spirit's
> > job to convict, and my job to love." - Reverend Billy Graham
>
> And you find the words of Billy Graham in the Bible at which
> pages?
It seems to be your choice to continue to attempt to limit the infinite
powers of GOD to the ink on the pages of the Bible. In the Holy Spirit,
I know most assuredly without doubt that you will continue to fail.
This victory is HIS. Laus Deo !
> >
> >> Matthew 3 13 Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto
> >> John, to be baptized of him. 14 But John forbad him, saying,
> >> I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?
> >>
> >> Matthew 3 17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my
> >> beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
> >>
> >> What? *BEFORE* John/t/B saw the dove and heard the voice
> >> (something John/G/A lets drop from the text) he knew that
> >> Jesus would be baptizing people.
> >
> > Correct. See above understanding of John 1:29-34 aided by the
> > counsel (see **emphasis**) of the Holy Spirit.
>
> You don't grasp the time-frame of all this?
>
> John doesn't know who Christ was/is this is what he says.
> Yet Matthew claims John/t/B knew that Jesus was more then just a
> carpenter, the very same who brings a baptism John needs.
Most assuredly without doubt, John the Baptist knew the identity of
Christ Jesus from the outset not by **himself** but via the Holy
Spirit.
> >> Matthew 3 11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance:
> >> but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I
> >> am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy
> >> Ghost, and with fire:
> >>
> >> So by all means we have now *contradictions* established
> >> between two "Gospel Authors" one John/t/B not knowing, while
> >> in the other he *knew* that Jesus was having a baptism
> >> John/t/B needed too.
> >
> > There is no contradiction for those with hearts made
> > discerning by the Holy Spirit.
>
> I prefer to think with my head "Dr. Hilarious"
Name-calling simply shows that you remain lost.
>, as my heart is a
> muscle pumping blood through my body...
The heart of your soul is filled with an evil spirit who drives you to
sin.
The wages of sin is death.
For this reason, your soul will die.
> > Again, see above Holy Spirit-led understanding of John
> > 1:29-34.
>
> Is this the same Holy Spirit that needed a sign from himself to
> know that Jesus is the Christ?
It is John the Baptist who needed the sign of seeing the Holy Spirit
light on Christ Jesus to fulfill the prophecy given to him by the Holy
Spirit.
> >> >> So if you are wrong about this minor detail, what else you
> >> >> are wrong..... But you are guided by the "Holy Spirit".
> >> >> How funny that thought is. Just hilarious Andrew, thanks
> >> >> for the laugh.
> >> >
> >> > Sorry to spoil your laugh. Please forgive all my
> >> > iniquities.
> >>
> >> First you would have to know that I stopped laughing. :-)
> >
> > In the Holy Spirit, I know.
>
> Then tell him he doesn't know it, and is giving you false
> information....
That is not what I discern.
> >> So the above by you is just a expression of your wishful
> >> thinking.
> >
> > You are projecting.
>
> Sorry this is the *impression* you give me here.
That is part of the strong delusion that GOD has placed in your mind.
> Nope, I don't project (in fact no need to do so) this is a
> logical thinking mans conclusion when reading your post.
Denial is part of projection.
> >> >> It's a shame that you think that you are testifying to
> >> >> Jesus, while I see the opposite of it taking place, people
> >> >> *turning* away from your testimony...
> >> >
> >> > There can be no greater praise from an agnostic for a
> >> > born-again Christian than what you have written. It
> >> > remains my choice to redirect this praise to GOD before it
> >> > becomes a snare for me. HE is the Source of all the
> >> > blessings in this world.
> >>
> >> Where is the praise in my reply?
> >
> > The praise is in your claim that you see people turned away by
> > what the Holy Spirit has guided me to write.
>
> Fact is not even many Christians here seem to agree with your
> claims....
Those who have opposed the Holy Spirit have fallen away from Christ
Jesus and remain wayward for now.
Those who remain in opposition serve the antichrist.
> >> You create a straw-men.....
> >
> > I am not the Creator.
>
> Of straw-men yes, you are.
No, I am not your Creator.
> >> And the curses as well Andrew, don't forget God's curses too.
> >
> > In Christ, I can.
>
> If God would forget the curses, then there wouldn't be eternal
> punishment...
There is not for those who remain in Christ:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Christ.asp
> >> > May GOD continue to keep your heart beating so you will have
> >> > the time you need to find the truth, dear neighbor Werner whom
> >> > I love unconditionally.
> >>
> >> "Your opinion and your wishes for my future are
> >> *meaningless*" <-- paraphrased reply by Andrew
> >
> > Prayer is neither opinion nor a wish.
>
> Matter of opinion.
The truth.
> >> >
> >> > Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love,
> >>
> >> Who was acting on the orders of God his Father.
> >
> > Who is LORD and GOD.
> >
> > "KING of kings and LORD of lords." (Revelation 19:16)
>
> Revelation 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave
> unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly
> come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his
> servant John:
>
> :-)
>
> You notice the chain, "Dr Hilarious"?
Yet again, name-calling simply demonstrates that your remain lost.
> First step:
> God gave the revelation to Jesus;
Yes, the Father gave the revelation to HIS Son.
> Second step: Jesus passes it on to an Angel;
Yes, LORD Jesus Christ sent the revelation to Apostle John by way of
HIS Angel.
> Third step: the Angel appears to John, telling him the words of
> Jesus and God.
Actually, GOD's Angel delivered the revelation as an experience for
John rather than mere words.
> > May GOD continue to keep your heart beating so that you will
> > have time to find the way, dear neighbor Werner whom I love
> > unconditionally.
>
> Don't worry about me finding the *way*, as I'm typing my responses
> here at home...
In the Holy Spirit, there is peace that passes all worldly
understanding.
> > Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love,
>
> Which is a expression of God's love *FIRST*
LORD Christ Jesus is risen with all the authority of heaven and earth
in HIS full possession.
Indeed, HE also has the keys to death and hell.
May GOD continue to keep your heart beating, dear neighbor Werner whom
I love unconditionally.
Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love,
Andrew <><
Werner -the Christian Agnostic- Kurator
in <1158462027....@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
on 2006-09-17 announced this statement:
> Werner -the Christian Agnostic- Kurator wrote:
>
>< read, noted, and snipped>
>
>> Andrew wrote:
>
>> > Many have asked for the source of the quote in the past as
>> > archived in Google and you will find each time that I did not
>> > name the source until now.
>>
>> Which means that you made up the claim just recently, would be
>> the plain truth.
>
> Not for the discerning.
To which you most certainly can't be counted.
***************
>> >> OK, there are of course a couple of issues I want to
>> >> address. First of all can you name *first-century*
>> >> *JEWISH* THINKERS who taught that the "Messiah" will carry
>> >> the sins of the people?
************
Well "Dr H." you still haven't named me any Jewish thinkers
of the first century who taught that the Messiah will take the
sins of the people...
>> >>
>> >> "Saul/Paul" or other *Christians* who was a apostate Jews
>> >> doesn't count.
>> >
>> > The thoughts of those who are without the LORD are
>> > meaningless (Ecclesiastes).
>>
>> Ahem, the issue is not me
>
> Correct.
>
>> , the issue is John/t/Baptist
>
> Actually, the issue is not about John the Baptist but about
> "Doubting" Thomas the Archetypal Agnostic Christian:
Which is only a figment of your Imagination, Thomas wasn't a
Christian yet, least of all a "Agnostic", he was a *JEW*. The
term *Christian* came in use *MUCH* LATER.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/16738ced00bb5247?
>
>> , so stick to the point, if this is possible....
>
> In truth, you have been distracted by John the Baptist and his
> being guided by the Holy Spirit and thus, you have been the
> reason for the digression.
Oh our blind chicken found a corn!
>
>> >
>> >> Secondly *who* supposedly *heard* this? It sure wasn't
>> >> *John/G/A* as he wasn't present at all. All this took
>> >> place *before* Jesus even started to call anybody to
>> >> follow him.
>> >
>> > John the Baptist's disciples were with him.
>>
>> Does this in any way change what I said that none of Jesus
>> disciples were there?
>
> No.
>
> GOD has caused you to forget that Andrew was **both** John the
> Baptist's and later Jesus' disciple **and** one of the two
> disciples who witnessed the speech.
You blame God for the mistakes of people? Wow!
You got the issue mixed up, the "Gospel author of John" wasn't
present, when John/t/B *supposedly* said that Jesus is the Lamb.
Besides Andrew was there only at the *second* day, so you can't
really say that he was there at the *first* day.
>
> This act by GOD is all the more amazing in light of the fact
> that HE named me Andrew to underscore the strength of the
> delusion HE has placed in your mind.
You speak of delusions, but have failed to show it. And again
your being named Andrew (by your parents, the pope or any other
person in the Universe) has the importance as a wet fart in your
pants to me... So will you claim that your parents who seemed to
be of Chinese stock were Christians, before you were born.
>
>> and if so how?
>
> GOD is indeed omnipotent.
>
>> Fact is that it is *hearsay* what John, Luke, Matthew or Mark
>> penned, *before* the disciples ever met Jesus. Hope you get
>> the point, if not just ask and I'll explain in even simpler
>> terms.
>
> It seems you believe that mere mortals can change the Word of
> GOD.
And how does your silly reply change anything of what I said?
Namely that John/G/Author wasn't *present* when all this took
place, so he is passing on *second* or third hand information,
which is *HEARSAY*, sorry if this truth bothers you, please
forgive me for pointing out the truth of this fact.
<big grin>
>
> In truth, it is the Word of GOD Who changes mortals and not
> the other way around.
"the real word of God" would/can do this indeed, but alas
nothing you have spouted so far was/is able to do so...
>
>> > "The next day John was there again with two of his
>> > disciples. When he saw Jesus passing by, he said, 'Look,
>> > the Lamb of GOD!'" (John 1:35).
>> >
>> >> > Clearly, John the Baptist is giving the credit to GOD
>> >> > for his knowledge that Jesus is the Lamb of GOD by his
>> >> > saying "I **myself** did not know HIM" because it is
>> >> > with the Holy
>> >
>> > Note **emphasis** that the Holy Spirit guided me to make
>> > anticipating your strong delusion below.
>>
>> The delusion you think you see is only in your head, but read
>> along...
>
> The strong delusion that GOD has placed in your mind remains
> obvious to the most casual observer.
Change of subject noted, you do this when you can't show that
your views are is correct.
>
>> >
>> >> > Spirit, that he knows Jesus to be the Son of GOD. This
>> >> > is affirmed by his restating that GOD is the source of
>> >> > his knowledge of Jesus in saying "I would not have known
>> >> > HIM, except that the ONE who sent me to baptize with
>> >> > water told me."
>> >>
>> >> Yep, lets not forget something else here (you ignore) John
>> >> was *FILLED* WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT, since the days of his
>> >> birth (and before).
>> >
>> > Yes, the Holy Spirit was guiding John the Baptist and
>> > compelling him to testify as described above.
>> >
>> >> Luke 1
>> >>
>> >> 15 For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and
>> >> shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall
>> >> be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's
>> >> womb.
>> >>
>> >> OK now according to John/G/A we have established that
>> >> John/t/B didn't know who *THE* Christ was.
>> >
>> > He did not know the Christ by **himself** but by GOD.
>>
>> Yeah supposedly filled with the Holy Spirit from the time if
>> his birth.
>
> Yes, even in utero, John the Baptist was aware of the Source
> of his knowledge about Christ Jesus.
Yet later John/T/B doubted that indeed Jesus was the Christ.
*HOLY SPIRIT* filled having seen the sign (maybe didn't hear the
voice as there was none?) and then still later doubts that Jesus
is the one...
>
>> > See **emphasis** above that was placed BEFORE you revealed
>> > your strong delusion.
>>
>> Your opinion about me is useless.
>
> Observation is not opinion.
Funny Dude when people like you can NOT win the arguments then they
toss out the claim that others suffer from delusions, while in
fact you claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit, one could see
this as delusion on your part just as well.
>
>> >
>> >> So how come that the person who was filled with the Holy
>> >> Spirit didn't know who the Son of God is!
>> >
>> > This serves to teach that we are not born with such
>> > knowledge but that such knowledge of Christ comes only from
>> > GOD the Holy Spirit. This is reiterated when Simon Peter
>> > correctly answered Jesus' question "Who do you say I am?"
>> > and Jesus stated that his answer could only come from GOD.
>>
>> So the "God the HOLY Spirit" is at the same time God the
>> Father?
>
> "The Father is in ME just as I am in the Father." -- Holy
> Spirit
Don't know which "Bible" this *quote* is coming from, *MY* KJV
says *JESUS* was saying this:
John 17
20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which
shall believe on me through their word;
21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me,
and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the
world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them;
that they may be one, even as we are one:
23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made
perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast
sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.
>
>> Matthew 16 15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
>> 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ,
>> the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answered and said
>> unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and
>> blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is
>> in heaven. So Jesus here says that God the Father *revealed*
>> this to truth to Peter, and not the God the *HOLY SPIRIT*.
>
> See above.
>
>> But of course in reality "Matthew" might have gotten it
>> wrong, and the *HOLY SPIRIT* is using you to point out the
>> errors crept into the Bible when "Holy Spirit/God/Jesus"
>> *INSPIRED* THE GOSPEL-AUTHORS....
>
> The Bible remains holy.
The Bible isn't God.
>
>> Nice diverting away from the point, I'm not talking about us,
>> or Peter but about John/t/B. John/t/B said he didn't know who
>> Christ was/is *before* he saw the sign. You can invent all
>> excuses now, to make this contradiction go away, but you will
>> fail.
>
> Without the Holy Spirit, you will always be a false prophet.
Have I *prophesied* something? AFAIR I was *speaking* of the
past. A past over 2000 years ago, so now you're bearing false
witness, another indication that you know your cornered on that
point.
But speaking about a *false* prophet....
From nos...@heartmdphd.com Thu Jan 19 15:25:20 2006
From: "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <nos...@heartmdphd.com>
Subject: Re: Forward your concerns to the European Baptist Federation
Date: 19 Jan 2006 05:34:45 -0800
Message-ID: <1137677685....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
<CUT>
David Matthieu P.P. wrote:
> Private E-mails that were sent to the Baptist Pastor Lothar
> Lessee have been published on several Usenet Public Newsgroups
> with the intent to denigrate and vilify a Poster regarding her
> sexual Orientation.
The possible global devastation on 3/29/2006 should be a greater
concern for all.
May the LORD help us all to face the great tribulation when the
Lamb opens the 6th seal possibly in less than a few months
(03/29/06), in Jesus' most precious and holy name.
Amen !!!
==== end quote
>
>> >> this creates the scenario, that God had to tell his own
>> >> Holy Spirit by another *Holy Spirit* who Jesus was.
>> >> Another *hilarious* scene for the "Monty Python gang" I'm
>> >> sure!
>> >
>> > Again, sorry to spoil your fun again. Please forgive all
>> > my iniquities.
>>
>> I'm, still having fun with your tap-dance so to say.
>
> That is not what I discern.
How could you admit that another person has fun on your
expenses "Dr Hilarious"....
>
>> >> So God the Father tells the person who has his Holy
>> >> Spirit, I'll give you a special *sign*!
>> >
>> > No. GOD the Holy Spirit gave John the Baptist an
>> > understanding of what he was witnessing.
>>
>> Hilarious the same Holy Spirit tells himself I'll give me a
>> sign?
>
> No.
Well this is the impression I got by what you typed.
==== quote "Dr Hilarious":
No. GOD the Holy Spirit gave John the Baptist an
understanding of what he was witnessing.
========
Lets recall that John/t/B was filled with the Holy Spirit....
>>
>
>> Of course with your claim that the "Holy Spirit" is teaching
>> you, you can invent all kind of funny scenarios.
>
> It remains my choice to continue to accept the guidance of
> the Holy Spirit in everything I say, do, and write.
The question arises if the *guidance* you RECEIVE is really from
the Holy Spirit...
>
>> > "It is my heavenly Father's job to judge, the Holy Spirit's
>> > job to convict, and my job to love." - Reverend Billy
>> > Graham
>>
>> And you find the words of Billy Graham in the Bible at which
>> pages?
>
> It seems to be your choice to continue to attempt to limit the
> infinite powers of GOD to the ink on the pages of the Bible.
Ah yeah, this is why you can accept choice portions of the holy
Koran. But why stick in the past, why don't you accept the
teachings of people in our time, Mose David (children of God)
S.M.Moon (the south Korean fella who claims to be the second
coming of Christ), they all claim that *GOD* Jesus/Holy Spirit
is speaking to them in *our* language a message for our time.
Maybe there would be something for you!
> In the Holy Spirit, I know most assuredly without doubt that
> you will continue to fail. This victory is HIS. Laus Deo !
If God is the victor, this doesn't mean *you* are partaking in
this.
>
>> >
>> >> Matthew 3 13 Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto
>> >> John, to be baptized of him. 14 But John forbad him,
>> >> saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest
>> >> thou to me?
>> >>
>> >> Matthew 3 17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is
>> >> my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
>> >>
>> >> What? *BEFORE* John/t/B saw the dove and heard the voice
>> >> (something John/G/A lets drop from the text) he knew that
>> >> Jesus would be baptizing people.
>> >
>> > Correct. See above understanding of John 1:29-34 aided by
>> > the counsel (see **emphasis**) of the Holy Spirit.
>>
>> You don't grasp the time-frame of all this?
>>
>> John doesn't know who Christ was/is this is what he says.
>> Yet Matthew claims John/t/B knew that Jesus was more then
>> just a carpenter, the very same who brings a baptism John
>> needs.
>
> Most assuredly without doubt, John the Baptist knew the
> identity of Christ Jesus from the outset not by **himself**
> but via the Holy Spirit.
One could have this conclusion if one basses his *assumptions*
on the *hearsay* of John/G/A. While Matthew paints a different
picture. Yet filled with the "Holy Spirit John/t/B later doubts
that Jesus is the Christ.
>
>> >> Matthew 3 11 I indeed baptize you with water unto
>> >> repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than
>> >> I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize
>> >> you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:
>> >>
>> >> So by all means we have now *contradictions* established
>> >> between two "Gospel Authors" one John/t/B not knowing,
>> >> while in the other he *knew* that Jesus was having a
>> >> baptism John/t/B needed too.
>> >
>> > There is no contradiction for those with hearts made
>> > discerning by the Holy Spirit.
>>
>> I prefer to think with my head "Dr. Hilarious"
>
> Name-calling simply shows that you remain lost.
You should wear the name with pride and honor, as it fits you to
a "T".
>
>>, as my heart is a muscle pumping blood through my body...
>
> The heart of your soul is filled with an evil spirit who
> drives you to sin.
"Your opinion is meaningless"
>
> The wages of sin is death.
Saul/Paul's claim...
>
> For this reason, your soul will die.
Nope it will return to God who gave it to me.
>
>> > Again, see above Holy Spirit-led understanding of John
>> > 1:29-34.
>>
>> Is this the same Holy Spirit that needed a sign from himself
>> to know that Jesus is the Christ?
>
> It is John the Baptist who needed the sign of seeing the Holy
> Spirit light on Christ Jesus to fulfill the prophecy given to
> him by the Holy Spirit.
So now you wanna *separate* John/t/B from the *Holy Spirit*..
Doesn't jive with the account in Matthew, that John knew Jesus
was the one bringing the greater baptism.
>
>> >> >> So if you are wrong about this minor detail, what else
>> >> >> you are wrong..... But you are guided by the "Holy
>> >> >> Spirit". How funny that thought is. Just hilarious
>> >> >> Andrew, thanks for the laugh.
>> >> >
>> >> > Sorry to spoil your laugh. Please forgive all my
>> >> > iniquities.
>> >>
>> >> First you would have to know that I stopped laughing. :-)
>> >
>> > In the Holy Spirit, I know.
>>
>> Then tell him he doesn't know it, and is giving you false
>> information....
>
> That is not what I discern.
Because your blinded to this.
>
>> >> So the above by you is just a expression of your wishful
>> >> thinking.
>> >
>> > You are projecting.
>>
>> Sorry this is the *impression* you give me here.
>
> That is part of the strong delusion that GOD has placed in
> your mind.
So God is no longer interested that people know the truth, and
gives them delusions? Yeah Paul/Saul makes that claim...
>> Nope, I don't project (in fact no need to do so) this is a
>> logical thinking mans conclusion when reading your post.
>
> Denial is part of projection.
"Your opinion is meaningless and more important useless"
>
>> >> >> It's a shame that you think that you are testifying to
>> >> >> Jesus, while I see the opposite of it taking place,
>> >> >> people *turning* away from your testimony...
>> >> >
>> >> > There can be no greater praise from an agnostic for a
>> >> > born-again Christian than what you have written. It
>> >> > remains my choice to redirect this praise to GOD before
>> >> > it becomes a snare for me. HE is the Source of all the
>> >> > blessings in this world.
>> >>
>> >> Where is the praise in my reply?
>> >
>> > The praise is in your claim that you see people turned away
>> > by what the Holy Spirit has guided me to write.
>>
>> Fact is not even many Christians here seem to agree with your
>> claims....
>
> Those who have opposed the Holy Spirit have fallen away from
> Christ Jesus and remain wayward for now.
Looks to me they were able to discern a fake "Holy Spirit" when
they saw it manifest in what you posted over the years....
>
> Those who remain in opposition serve the antichrist.
Who goes by the name of Andrew B Chung, as I'm sure some came to
conclude..
>
>> >> You create a straw-men.....
>> >
>> > I am not the Creator.
>>
>> Of straw-men yes, you are.
>
> No, I am not your Creator.
So you are in the habit of talking to "straw-man"?
>
>> >> And the curses as well Andrew, don't forget God's curses
>> >> too.
>> >
>> > In Christ, I can.
>>
>> If God would forget the curses, then there wouldn't be
>> eternal punishment...
>
> There is not for those who remain in Christ:
>
> http://HeartMDPhD.com/Christ.asp
got something to say? then say it here, I'm not about chasing
websites.....
>
>> >> > May GOD continue to keep your heart beating so you will
>> >> > have the time you need to find the truth, dear neighbor
>> >> > Werner whom I love unconditionally.
>> >>
>> >> "Your opinion and your wishes for my future are
>> >> *meaningless*" <-- paraphrased reply by Andrew
>> >
>> > Prayer is neither opinion nor a wish.
>>
>> Matter of opinion.
>
> The truth.
Didn't convince me.
>
>> >> >
>> >> > Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love,
>> >>
>> >> Who was acting on the orders of God his Father.
>> >
>> > Who is LORD and GOD.
>> >
>> > "KING of kings and LORD of lords." (Revelation 19:16)
>>
>> Revelation 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave
>> unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly
>> come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto
>> his servant John:
>>
>> :-)
>>
>> You notice the chain, "Dr Hilarious"?
>
> Yet again, name-calling simply demonstrates that your remain
> lost.
How can I be *lost* when I'm sitting at home right in front of a
PC I have been using for years now?
>
>> First step: God gave the revelation to Jesus;
>
> Yes, the Father gave the revelation to HIS Son.
Which means Jesus isn't all-knowing.... Or can't be the God
existing since time immortal.
>
>> Second step: Jesus passes it on to an Angel;
>
> Yes, LORD Jesus Christ sent the revelation to Apostle John by
> way of HIS Angel.
Fine that you agree with this...
>
>> Third step: the Angel appears to John, telling him the words
>> of Jesus and God.
>
> Actually, GOD's Angel delivered the revelation as an
> experience for John rather than mere words.
Makes no difference to me.
>
>> > May GOD continue to keep your heart beating so that you
>> > will have time to find the way, dear neighbor Werner whom I
>> > love unconditionally.
>>
>> Don't worry about me finding the *way*, as I'm typing my
>> responses here at home...
>
> In the Holy Spirit, there is peace that passes all worldly
> understanding.
"Concept".
>
>> > Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love,
>>
>> Which is a expression of God's love *FIRST*
>
> LORD Christ Jesus is risen with all the authority of heaven
> and earth in HIS full possession.
The authority was given to him, and he says he will and can pass
it on to another or others...
>
> Indeed, HE also has the keys to death and hell.
Post the Bible Passage, or is this another of your *private*
revelations?
>
> May GOD continue to keep your heart beating, dear neighbor
> Werner whom I love unconditionally.
And I told you, if I do pass on today or tomorrow I have nothing
to worry about.
>
<cut Dr Hilarious's Sig>
June 1978
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet?
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew wrote:
> >
> >< read, noted, and snipped>
> >
> >> Andrew wrote:
> >
> >> > Many have asked for the source of the quote in the past as
> >> > archived in Google and you will find each time that I did not
> >> > name the source until now.
> >>
> >> Which means that you made up the claim just recently, would be
> >> the plain truth.
> >
> > Not for the discerning.
>
> To which you most certainly can't be counted.
You remind me of the blind man who would feign vision by pretending to
dismiss the vision of the seeing.
Name-calling simply demonstrates that you remain lost.
> >> >> "Saul/Paul" or other *Christians* who was a apostate Jews
> >> >> doesn't count.
> >> >
> >> > The thoughts of those who are without the LORD are
> >> > meaningless (Ecclesiastes).
> >>
> >> Ahem, the issue is not me
> >
> > Correct.
> >
> >> , the issue is John/t/Baptist
> >
> > Actually, the issue is not about John the Baptist but about
> > "Doubting" Thomas the Archetypal Agnostic Christian:
>
> Which is only a figment of your Imagination, Thomas wasn't a
> Christian yet, least of all a "Agnostic", he was a *JEW*. The
> term *Christian* came in use *MUCH* LATER.
He remains your archetype.
> > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/16738ced00bb5247?
>
> >
> >> , so stick to the point, if this is possible....
> >
> > In truth, you have been distracted by John the Baptist and his
> > being guided by the Holy Spirit and thus, you have been the
> > reason for the digression.
>
> Oh our blind chicken found a corn!
Again, your remind me of that blind man...
> >> >> Secondly *who* supposedly *heard* this? It sure wasn't
> >> >> *John/G/A* as he wasn't present at all. All this took
> >> >> place *before* Jesus even started to call anybody to
> >> >> follow him.
> >> >
> >> > John the Baptist's disciples were with him.
> >>
> >> Does this in any way change what I said that none of Jesus
> >> disciples were there?
> >
> > No.
> >
> > GOD has caused you to forget that Andrew was **both** John the
> > Baptist's and later Jesus' disciple **and** one of the two
> > disciples who witnessed the speech.
>
> You blame God for the mistakes of people? Wow!
Your difficulties with GOD actually glorifies HIM.
> You got the issue mixed up, the "Gospel author of John" wasn't
> present, when John/t/B *supposedly* said that Jesus is the Lamb.
> Besides Andrew was there only at the *second* day, so you can't
> really say that he was there at the *first* day.
In the Holy Spirit, I know firsthand that my namesake was present from
the outset to serve as witness for the rest of the chosen 12.
> > This act by GOD is all the more amazing in light of the fact
> > that HE named me Andrew to underscore the strength of the
> > delusion HE has placed in your mind.
>
> You speak of delusions, but have failed to show it.
In my walk with Christ Jesus, HE keeps me completely well while you
serve to show the strong delusion HE has placed in your mind.
> And again
> your being named Andrew (by your parents, the pope or any other
> person in the Universe) has the importance as a wet fart in your
> pants to me... So will you claim that your parents who seemed to
> be of Chinese stock were Christians, before you were born.
Nothing happens by chance but everything that folks would opine to be
random happens by GOD (Proverbs 16:33).
> >> and if so how?
> >
> > GOD is indeed omnipotent.
> >
> >> Fact is that it is *hearsay* what John, Luke, Matthew or Mark
> >> penned, *before* the disciples ever met Jesus. Hope you get
> >> the point, if not just ask and I'll explain in even simpler
> >> terms.
> >
> > It seems you believe that mere mortals can change the Word of
> > GOD.
>
> And how does your silly reply change anything of what I said?
Your inability to refute my observation about your believing that mere
mortals can change the Word of GOD noted.
> Namely that John/G/Author wasn't *present* when all this took
> place, so he is passing on *second* or third hand information,
> which is *HEARSAY*, sorry if this truth bothers you, please
> forgive me for pointing out the truth of this fact.
In the Holy Spirit, John also witnessed what took place firsthand.
> <big grin>
Sorry to spoil your fun. Please forgive all my iniquities.
> > In truth, it is the Word of GOD Who changes mortals and not
> > the other way around.
>
> "the real word of God" would/can do this indeed, but alas
> nothing you have spouted so far was/is able to do so...
Your being aware of the strong delusion that GOD has placed in your
mind will change you.
> >> > "The next day John was there again with two of his
> >> > disciples. When he saw Jesus passing by, he said, 'Look,
> >> > the Lamb of GOD!'" (John 1:35).
> >> >
> >> >> > Clearly, John the Baptist is giving the credit to GOD
> >> >> > for his knowledge that Jesus is the Lamb of GOD by his
> >> >> > saying "I **myself** did not know HIM" because it is
> >> >> > with the Holy
> >> >
> >> > Note **emphasis** that the Holy Spirit guided me to make
> >> > anticipating your strong delusion below.
> >>
> >> The delusion you think you see is only in your head, but read
> >> along...
> >
> > The strong delusion that GOD has placed in your mind remains
> > obvious to the most casual observer.
>
> Change of subject noted, you do this when you can't show that
> your views are is correct.
The proof will be in the change that will happen to you because of your
now being aware of the strong delusion that GOD has placed in your
mind.
You have absolutely no other explanation for why you had previously
failed to understand that Andrew was present from the outset to witness
John's testimony concerning his knowledge of Jesus' identity.
> >> >> > Spirit, that he knows Jesus to be the Son of GOD. This
> >> >> > is affirmed by his restating that GOD is the source of
> >> >> > his knowledge of Jesus in saying "I would not have known
> >> >> > HIM, except that the ONE who sent me to baptize with
> >> >> > water told me."
> >> >>
> >> >> Yep, lets not forget something else here (you ignore) John
> >> >> was *FILLED* WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT, since the days of his
> >> >> birth (and before).
> >> >
> >> > Yes, the Holy Spirit was guiding John the Baptist and
> >> > compelling him to testify as described above.
> >> >
> >> >> Luke 1
> >> >>
> >> >> 15 For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and
> >> >> shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall
> >> >> be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's
> >> >> womb.
> >> >>
> >> >> OK now according to John/G/A we have established that
> >> >> John/t/B didn't know who *THE* Christ was.
> >> >
> >> > He did not know the Christ by **himself** but by GOD.
> >>
> >> Yeah supposedly filled with the Holy Spirit from the time if
> >> his birth.
> >
> > Yes, even in utero, John the Baptist was aware of the Source
> > of his knowledge about Christ Jesus.
>
> Yet later John/T/B doubted that indeed Jesus was the Christ.
Being incarcerated with a death sentence handing over his head
(literally) will do that to humans.
> *HOLY SPIRIT* filled having seen the sign (maybe didn't hear the
> voice as there was none?) and then still later doubts that Jesus
> is the one...
This served to show that John the Baptist was indeed human.
GOD's strength is made perfect in our weakness especially when we face
death.
> >> > See **emphasis** above that was placed BEFORE you revealed
> >> > your strong delusion.
> >>
> >> Your opinion about me is useless.
> >
> > Observation is not opinion.
>
> Funny Dude when people like you can NOT win the arguments then they
> toss out the claim that others suffer from delusions
There is no way to deny the strong delusion that GOD has placed in your
mind.
It is obvious to the most casual observer who is following this thread.
Denial is expected from the deluded.
> , while in
> fact you claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit, one could see
> this as delusion on your part just as well.
It remains my choice to continue to write truthfully under the guidance
of the Holy Spirit.
> >> >> So how come that the person who was filled with the Holy
> >> >> Spirit didn't know who the Son of God is!
> >> >
> >> > This serves to teach that we are not born with such
> >> > knowledge but that such knowledge of Christ comes only from
> >> > GOD the Holy Spirit. This is reiterated when Simon Peter
> >> > correctly answered Jesus' question "Who do you say I am?"
> >> > and Jesus stated that his answer could only come from GOD.
> >>
> >> So the "God the HOLY Spirit" is at the same time God the
> >> Father?
> >
> > "The Father is in ME just as I am in the Father." -- Holy
> > Spirit
>
> Don't know which "Bible" this *quote* is coming from, *MY* KJV
> says *JESUS* was saying this:
>
> John 17
> 20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which
> shall believe on me through their word;
> 21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me,
> and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the
> world may believe that thou hast sent me.
> 22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them;
> that they may be one, even as we are one:
> 23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made
> perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast
> sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.
Amen !
> >> Matthew 16 15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
> >> 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ,
> >> the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answered and said
> >> unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and
> >> blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is
> >> in heaven. So Jesus here says that God the Father *revealed*
> >> this to truth to Peter, and not the God the *HOLY SPIRIT*.
> >
> > See above.
> >
> >> But of course in reality "Matthew" might have gotten it
> >> wrong, and the *HOLY SPIRIT* is using you to point out the
> >> errors crept into the Bible when "Holy Spirit/God/Jesus"
> >> *INSPIRED* THE GOSPEL-AUTHORS....
> >
> > The Bible remains holy.
>
> The Bible isn't God.
The Bible is GOD-breathed.
> >> Nice diverting away from the point, I'm not talking about us,
> >> or Peter but about John/t/B. John/t/B said he didn't know who
> >> Christ was/is *before* he saw the sign. You can invent all
> >> excuses now, to make this contradiction go away, but **you will
> >> fail.**
**emphasis** added.
> > Without the Holy Spirit, you will always be a false prophet.
>
> Have I *prophesied* something? AFAIR I was *speaking* of the
> past. A past over 2000 years ago, so now you're bearing false
> witness, another indication that you know your cornered on that
> point.
See **emphasis** above.
> But speaking about a *false* prophet....
See **emphasis** below.
> From nos...@heartmdphd.com Thu Jan 19 15:25:20 2006
> From: "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <nos...@heartmdphd.com>
> Subject: Re: Forward your concerns to the European Baptist Federation
> Date: 19 Jan 2006 05:34:45 -0800
> Message-ID: <1137677685....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
>
> <CUT>
>
> David Matthieu P.P. wrote:
> > Private E-mails that were sent to the Baptist Pastor Lothar
> > Lessee have been published on several Usenet Public Newsgroups
> > with the intent to denigrate and vilify a Poster regarding her
> > sexual Orientation.
>
> The **possible** global devastation on 3/29/2006 should be a greater
> concern for all.
**emphasis** added.
Advisories are not prophecies.
> May the LORD help us all to face the great tribulation when the
> Lamb opens the 6th seal possibly in less than a few months
> (03/29/06), in Jesus' most precious and holy name.
>
> Amen !!!
>
> ==== end quote
>
> >
> >> >> this creates the scenario, that God had to tell his own
> >> >> Holy Spirit by another *Holy Spirit* who Jesus was.
> >> >> Another *hilarious* scene for the "Monty Python gang" I'm
> >> >> sure!
> >> >
> >> > Again, sorry to spoil your fun again. Please forgive all
> >> > my iniquities.
> >>
> >> I'm, still having fun with your tap-dance so to say.
> >
> > That is not what I discern.
>
> How could you admit that another person has fun on your
> expenses "Dr Hilarious"....
Yet again, name-calling ...
Your bearing false witness is forgiven as far as I am concerned.
> >> >> So God the Father tells the person who has his Holy
> >> >> Spirit, I'll give you a special *sign*!
> >> >
> >> > No. GOD the Holy Spirit gave John the Baptist an
> >> > understanding of what he was witnessing.
> >>
> >> Hilarious the same Holy Spirit tells himself I'll give me a
> >> sign?
> >
> > No.
>
> Well this is the impression I got by what you typed.
>
> ==== quote "Dr Hilarious":
The lost lack the strength of the truth to resist the tempation of
descending into name-calling.
> No. GOD the Holy Spirit gave John the Baptist an
> understanding of what he was witnessing.
> ========
> Lets recall that John/t/B was filled with the Holy Spirit....
John the Baptist and the Holy Spirit are two different persons.
> >> Of course with your claim that the "Holy Spirit" is teaching
> >> you, you can invent all kind of funny scenarios.
> >
> > It remains my choice to continue to accept the guidance of
> > the Holy Spirit in everything I say, do, and write.
>
> The question arises if the *guidance* you RECEIVE is really from
> the Holy Spirit...
The question is answered by simply surfing the links below my sigs.
> >> > "It is my heavenly Father's job to judge, the Holy Spirit's
> >> > job to convict, and my job to love." - Reverend Billy
> >> > Graham
> >>
> >> And you find the words of Billy Graham in the Bible at which
> >> pages?
> >
> > It seems to be your choice to continue to attempt to limit the
> > infinite powers of GOD to the ink on the pages of the Bible.
>
> Ah yeah, this is why you can accept choice portions of the holy
> Koran. But why stick in the past, why don't you accept the
> teachings of people in our time, Mose David (children of God)
> S.M.Moon (the south Korean fella who claims to be the second
> coming of Christ), they all claim that *GOD* Jesus/Holy Spirit
> is speaking to them in *our* language a message for our time.
> Maybe there would be something for you!
It remains my choice to refrain from judging others per the kind and
helpful suggestion of LORD Jesus Christ (Matthew 7:1-2)
> > In the Holy Spirit, I know most assuredly without doubt that
> > you will continue to fail. This victory is HIS. Laus Deo !
>
> If God is the victor, this doesn't mean *you* are partaking in
> this.
For your worldview, you will remain strongly deluded.
> >> >> Matthew 3 13 Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto
> >> >> John, to be baptized of him. 14 But John forbad him,
> >> >> saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest
> >> >> thou to me?
> >> >>
> >> >> Matthew 3 17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is
> >> >> my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
> >> >>
> >> >> What? *BEFORE* John/t/B saw the dove and heard the voice
> >> >> (something John/G/A lets drop from the text) he knew that
> >> >> Jesus would be baptizing people.
> >> >
> >> > Correct. See above understanding of John 1:29-34 aided by
> >> > the counsel (see **emphasis**) of the Holy Spirit.
> >>
> >> You don't grasp the time-frame of all this?
> >>
> >> John doesn't know who Christ was/is this is what he says.
> >> Yet Matthew claims John/t/B knew that Jesus was more then
> >> just a carpenter, the very same who brings a baptism John
> >> needs.
> >
> > Most assuredly without doubt, John the Baptist knew the
> > identity of Christ Jesus from the outset not by **himself**
> > but via the Holy Spirit.
>
> One could have this conclusion if one basses his *assumptions*
> on the *hearsay* of John/G/A.
In the Holy Spirit, there is no heresay.
Most assuredly without doubt, St. John remains in the Holy Spirit.
> While Matthew paints a different
> picture.
Matthew is a different witness.
> Yet filled with the "Holy Spirit John/t/B later doubts
> that Jesus is the Christ.
All humans doubt while threatened with decapitation.
"All humans fall short of the glory of GOD." -- Holy Spirit
> >> >> Matthew 3 11 I indeed baptize you with water unto
> >> >> repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than
> >> >> I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize
> >> >> you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:
> >> >>
> >> >> So by all means we have now *contradictions* established
> >> >> between two "Gospel Authors" one John/t/B not knowing,
> >> >> while in the other he *knew* that Jesus was having a
> >> >> baptism John/t/B needed too.
> >> >
> >> > There is no contradiction for those with hearts made
> >> > discerning by the Holy Spirit.
> >>
> >> I prefer to think with my head "Dr. Hilarious"
> >
> > Name-calling simply shows that you remain lost.
>
> You should wear the name with pride and honor, as it fits you to
> a "T".
If you wore "Lost" on a T-Shirt, folks would think you are advertising
for a TV show but those who really know you will really know what it
means.
> >>, as my heart is a muscle pumping blood through my body...
> >
> > The heart of your soul is filled with an evil spirit who
> > drives you to sin.
>
> "Your opinion is meaningless"
Observation by a cardiologist concerning what is in your heart is
neither meaningless nor opinion.
> > The wages of sin is death.
>
> Saul/Paul's claim...
The truth.
> > For this reason, your soul will die.
>
> Nope it will return to God who gave it to me.
Not without faith in LORD Jesus Christ.
"I am the way, the truth, and the life ... " -- LORD Jesus Christ
> >> > Again, see above Holy Spirit-led understanding of John
> >> > 1:29-34.
> >>
> >> Is this the same Holy Spirit that needed a sign from himself
> >> to know that Jesus is the Christ?
> >
> > It is John the Baptist who needed the sign of seeing the Holy
> > Spirit light on Christ Jesus to fulfill the prophecy given to
> > him by the Holy Spirit.
>
> So now you wanna *separate* John/t/B from the *Holy Spirit*..
They are separate persons.
> Doesn't jive with the account in Matthew, that John knew Jesus
> was the one bringing the greater baptism.
Again, John knew this not by himself but via the Holy Spirit.
> >> >> >> So if you are wrong about this minor detail, what else
> >> >> >> you are wrong..... But you are guided by the "Holy
> >> >> >> Spirit". How funny that thought is. Just hilarious
> >> >> >> Andrew, thanks for the laugh.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Sorry to spoil your laugh. Please forgive all my
> >> >> > iniquities.
> >> >>
> >> >> First you would have to know that I stopped laughing. :-)
> >> >
> >> > In the Holy Spirit, I know.
> >>
> >> Then tell him he doesn't know it, and is giving you false
> >> information....
> >
> > That is not what I discern.
>
> Because your blinded to this.
You remind me of that blind man would would feign vision by denying the
vision of the seeing.
> >> >> So the above by you is just a expression of your wishful
> >> >> thinking.
> >> >
> >> > You are projecting.
> >>
> >> Sorry this is the *impression* you give me here.
> >
> > That is part of the strong delusion that GOD has placed in
> > your mind.
>
> So God is no longer interested that people know the truth, and
> gives them delusions? Yeah Paul/Saul makes that claim...
"GOD loves whom HE chooses to love." -- Holy Spirit
> >> Nope, I don't project (in fact no need to do so) this is a
> >> logical thinking mans conclusion when reading your post.
> >
> > Denial is part of projection.
>
> "Your opinion is meaningless and more important useless"
Without the LORD, all that you write will be meaningless
(Ecclesiastes).
> >> >> >> It's a shame that you think that you are testifying to
> >> >> >> Jesus, while I see the opposite of it taking place,
> >> >> >> people *turning* away from your testimony...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > There can be no greater praise from an agnostic for a
> >> >> > born-again Christian than what you have written. It
> >> >> > remains my choice to redirect this praise to GOD before
> >> >> > it becomes a snare for me. HE is the Source of all the
> >> >> > blessings in this world.
> >> >>
> >> >> Where is the praise in my reply?
> >> >
> >> > The praise is in your claim that you see people turned away
> >> > by what the Holy Spirit has guided me to write.
> >>
> >> Fact is not even many Christians here seem to agree with your
> >> claims....
> >
> > Those who have opposed the Holy Spirit have fallen away from
> > Christ Jesus and remain wayward for now.
>
> Looks to me they were able to discern a fake "Holy Spirit" when
> they saw it manifest in what you posted over the years....
You remind me of the blind man who would feign vision by providing
supporting testimony for other blind men feigning vision.
> > Those who remain in opposition serve the antichrist.
>
> Who goes by the name of Andrew B Chung, as I'm sure some came to
> conclude..
There can be no higher praise that can come from an agnostic/atheist
for a born-again Christian. Would redirect this praise to GOD before
it becomes a snare for me.
> >
> >> >> You create a straw-men.....
> >> >
> >> > I am not the Creator.
> >>
> >> Of straw-men yes, you are.
> >
> > No, I am not your Creator.
>
> So you are in the habit of talking to "straw-man"?
Love is patient.
> >> >> And the curses as well Andrew, don't forget God's curses
> >> >> too.
> >> >
> >> > In Christ, I can.
> >>
> >> If God would forget the curses, then there wouldn't be
> >> eternal punishment...
> >
> > There is not for those who remain in Christ:
> >
> > http://HeartMDPhD.com/Christ.asp
>
> got something to say? then say it here, I'm not about chasing
> websites.....
"Those who do not work, do not eat." -- Holy Spirit
> >> >> > May GOD continue to keep your heart beating so you will
> >> >> > have the time you need to find the truth, dear neighbor
> >> >> > Werner whom I love unconditionally.
> >> >>
> >> >> "Your opinion and your wishes for my future are
> >> >> *meaningless*" <-- paraphrased reply by Andrew
> >> >
> >> > Prayer is neither opinion nor a wish.
> >>
> >> Matter of opinion.
> >
> > The truth.
>
> Didn't convince me.
The strong delusion that GOD has placed in your mind will be impossible
to overcome without GOD's help:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/dad0ac3a8863795b?
> >> >> > Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love,
> >> >>
> >> >> Who was acting on the orders of God his Father.
> >> >
> >> > Who is LORD and GOD.
> >> >
> >> > "KING of kings and LORD of lords." (Revelation 19:16)
> >>
> >> Revelation 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave
> >> unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly
> >> come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto
> >> his servant John:
> >>
> >> :-)
> >>
> >> You notice the chain, "Dr Hilarious"?
> >
> > Yet again, name-calling simply demonstrates that you remain
> > lost.
>
> How can I be *lost* when I'm sitting at home right in front of a
> PC I have been using for years now?
By not knowing the way.
"I am the way, the truth, and the life ... " -- LORD Jesus Christ
> >> First step: God gave the revelation to Jesus;
> >
> > Yes, the Father gave the revelation to HIS Son.
>
> Which means Jesus isn't all-knowing.... Or can't be the God
> existing since time immortal.
"The Father is in ME as I am in the Father." -- LORD Jesus Christ
> >> Second step: Jesus passes it on to an Angel;
> >
> > Yes, LORD Jesus Christ sent the revelation to Apostle John by
> > way of HIS Angel.
>
> Fine that you agree with this...
It remains my choice to continue to write truthfully.
> >> Third step: the Angel appears to John, telling him the words
> >> of Jesus and God.
> >
> > Actually, GOD's Angel delivered the revelation as an
> > experience for John rather than mere words.
>
> Makes no difference to me.
Does not surprise me.
> >> > May GOD continue to keep your heart beating so that you
> >> > will have time to find the way, dear neighbor Werner whom I
> >> > love unconditionally.
> >>
> >> Don't worry about me finding the *way*, as I'm typing my
> >> responses here at home...
> >
> > In the Holy Spirit, there is peace that passes all worldly
> > understanding.
>
> "Concept".
The truth.
> >> > Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love,
> >>
> >> Which is a expression of God's love *FIRST*
> >
> > LORD Christ Jesus is risen with all the authority of heaven
> > and earth in HIS full possession.
>
> The authority was given to him, and he says he will and can pass
> it on to another or others...
HIS brethren now have HIS authority.
> > Indeed, HE also has the keys to death and hell.
>
> Post the Bible Passage, or is this another of your *private*
> revelations?
"Those who do not work, do not eat." -- Holy Spirit
> > May GOD continue to keep your heart beating, dear neighbor
> > Werner whom I love unconditionally.
>
> And I told you, if I do pass on today or tomorrow I have nothing
> to worry about.
That is not what I discern.
May GOD continue to keep your heart beating, dear neighbor Werner whom
I love unconditionally.
Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love,
Andrew <><
Werner -the Christian Agnostic- Kurator
> Werner - the Atheist - Kurator wrote:
>> Andrew wrote:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You changed what I typed. I guess I hit a soft-spot here, and
your pride is hurt... But if you claim that I'm a "Atheist" then
your *bearing* false witness "Dr Hilarious". If I were one I
wouldn't mind saying so.
<cut old stuff>
>> ***************
>> >> >> OK, there are of course a couple of issues I want to
>> >> >> address. First of all can you name *first-century*
>> >> >> *JEWISH* THINKERS who taught that the "Messiah" will
>> >> >> carry the sins of the people?
>> ************
>>
>> Well "Dr H." you still haven't named me any Jewish thinkers
>> of the first century who taught that the Messiah will take
>> the sins of the people...
>
> Name-calling simply demonstrates that you remain lost.
You are entitled to your opinion which of course is wrong.
But I noted that you still couldn't come up with *non-Christian*
thinkers who held the view that the Messiah would take the sins
of people....
>
>> >> >> "Saul/Paul" or other *Christians* who was a apostate
>> >> >> Jews doesn't count.
>> >> >
>> >> > The thoughts of those who are without the LORD are
>> >> > meaningless (Ecclesiastes).
>> >>
>> >> Ahem, the issue is not me
>> >
>> > Correct.
>> >
>> >> , the issue is John/t/Baptist
>> >
>> > Actually, the issue is not about John the Baptist but about
>> > "Doubting" Thomas the Archetypal Agnostic Christian:
>>
>> Which is only a figment of your Imagination, Thomas wasn't a
>> Christian yet, least of all a "Agnostic", he was a *JEW*. The
>> term *Christian* came in use *MUCH* LATER.
>
> He remains your archetype.
You base this on what? A *supposed* statement? Actually his
*history* of being a *disciple* shows me that you are wrong yet
again.
>
>> > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/16738ced00bb5247?
>>
>> >
>> >> , so stick to the point, if this is possible....
>> >
>> > In truth, you have been distracted by John the Baptist and
>> > his being guided by the Holy Spirit and thus, you have been
>> > the reason for the digression.
>>
>> Oh our blind chicken found a corn!
>
> Again, your remind me of that blind man...
Yeah I know, when you can't win the discussion, or prove the
point you resort to these tactics.
>
>> >> >> Secondly *who* supposedly *heard* this? It sure wasn't
>> >> >> *John/G/A* as he wasn't present at all. All this took
>> >> >> place *before* Jesus even started to call anybody to
>> >> >> follow him.
>> >> >
>> >> > John the Baptist's disciples were with him.
>> >>
>> >> Does this in any way change what I said that none of Jesus
>> >> disciples were there?
>> >
>> > No.
>> >
>> > GOD has caused you to forget that Andrew was **both** John
>> > the Baptist's and later Jesus' disciple **and** one of the
>> > two disciples who witnessed the speech.
>>
>> You blame God for the mistakes of people? Wow!
>
> Your difficulties with GOD actually glorifies HIM.
I don't have difficulties with God, but with the nonsense you
come up with...
>
>> You got the issue mixed up, the "Gospel author of John"
>> wasn't present, when John/t/B *supposedly* said that Jesus is
>> the Lamb. Besides Andrew was there only at the *second* day,
>> so you can't really say that he was there at the *first* day.
>
> In the Holy Spirit, I know firsthand that my namesake was
> present from the outset to serve as witness for the rest of
> the chosen 12.
Like you knew that the earth would face *possible* devastation at
the beginning of the year. This is why you should change your
"nym" to "Dr Hilarious" now this would really befitting you.
>
>> > This act by GOD is all the more amazing in light of the
>> > fact that HE named me Andrew to underscore the strength of
>> > the delusion HE has placed in your mind.
>>
>> You speak of delusions, but have failed to show it.
>
> In my walk with Christ Jesus, HE keeps me completely well
> while you serve to show the strong delusion HE has placed in
> your mind.
Yawn...... So God who is supposedly concerned about me, finding
the truth (and you wish that my heart keeps beating for that
end) at the same time places delusions into the minds of those
whom he supposedly wants to save.... kind of hilarious and of
course very weird..
>
>> And again your being named Andrew (by your parents, the pope
>> or any other person in the Universe) has the importance as a
>> wet fart in your pants to me... So will you claim that your
>> parents who seemed to be of Chinese stock were Christians,
>> before you were born.
>
> Nothing happens by chance but everything that folks would
> opine to be random happens by GOD (Proverbs 16:33).
So where is the free will you claim?
>
>> >> and if so how?
>> >
>> > GOD is indeed omnipotent.
>> >
>> >> Fact is that it is *hearsay* what John, Luke, Matthew or
>> >> Mark penned, *before* the disciples ever met Jesus. Hope
>> >> you get the point, if not just ask and I'll explain in
>> >> even simpler terms.
>> >
>> > It seems you believe that mere mortals can change the Word
>> > of GOD.
>>
>> And how does your silly reply change anything of what I said?
>
> Your inability to refute my observation about your believing
> that mere mortals can change the Word of GOD noted.
When have I stated that I believe mortals can change the *real*
word of God? *YOU* may pretend that you speak the word of God,
but you may change it in reality.
>
>> Namely that John/G/Author wasn't *present* when all this took
>> place, so he is passing on *second* or third hand
>> information, which is *HEARSAY*, sorry if this truth bothers
>> you, please forgive me for pointing out the truth of this
>> fact.
>
> In the Holy Spirit, John also witnessed what took place
> firsthand.
>
>> <big grin>
>
> Sorry to spoil your fun. Please forgive all my iniquities.
I'm still grinning at you.
>
>> > In truth, it is the Word of GOD Who changes mortals and not
>> > the other way around.
>>
>> "the real word of God" would/can do this indeed, but alas
>> nothing you have spouted so far was/is able to do so...
>
> Your being aware of the strong delusion that GOD has placed in
> your mind will change you.
You misread what I have said, no I don't suffer from delusions,
in fact you haven't shown them, you just claim that this is so.
>
>> >> > "The next day John was there again with two of his
>> >> > disciples. When he saw Jesus passing by, he said,
>> >> > 'Look, the Lamb of GOD!'" (John 1:35).
>> >> >
>> >> >> > Clearly, John the Baptist is giving the credit to GOD
>> >> >> > for his knowledge that Jesus is the Lamb of GOD by
>> >> >> > his saying "I **myself** did not know HIM" because it
>> >> >> > is with the Holy
>> >> >
>> >> > Note **emphasis** that the Holy Spirit guided me to make
>> >> > anticipating your strong delusion below.
>> >>
>> >> The delusion you think you see is only in your head, but
>> >> read along...
>> >
>> > The strong delusion that GOD has placed in your mind
>> > remains obvious to the most casual observer.
>>
>> Change of subject noted, you do this when you can't show that
>> your views are is correct.
>
> The proof will be in the change that will happen to you
> because of your now being aware of the strong delusion that
> GOD has placed in your mind.
>
> You have absolutely no other explanation for why you had
> previously failed to understand that Andrew was present from
> the outset to witness John's testimony concerning his
> knowledge of Jesus' identity.
Again you fail to understand that I was speaking about
"John/Gospel/Author", he wasn't present when John/t/Baptist
supposedly gave the his testimony. If I'm wrong, then *post* the
passage that says John/G/A was there! HE wasn't.
And as to the disciple called Andrew, (not you "Dr Hilarious")
*NOWHERE* DOES it say that he too was present at the *first*
day, that he was there at the *second* isn't disputed by me at
all. On the first day he could have been at some other location.
Hahaha, not at the time. Again show me that he was under the
death-sentence when he sends the 2 disciples of his to Jesus.
Where does the Bible say this, "while John/t/B was expecting
losing his head he send two of his disciples to Jesus". Nay you
make this up. Sure later John was beheaded, but *HOW* MUCH TIME
went by we don't know.
>
>> *HOLY SPIRIT* filled having seen the sign (maybe didn't hear
>> the voice as there was none?) and then still later doubts
>> that Jesus is the one...
>
> This served to show that John the Baptist was indeed human.
Served whom? You maybe, to me John was *human* from the fact
that his parents were named...
>
> GOD's strength is made perfect in our weakness especially when
> we face death.
And you know this from *personal* experience?
>
>> >> > See **emphasis** above that was placed BEFORE you
>> >> > revealed your strong delusion.
>> >>
>> >> Your opinion about me is useless.
>> >
>> > Observation is not opinion.
>>
>> Funny Dude when people like you can NOT win the arguments
>> then they toss out the claim that others suffer from
>> delusions
>
> There is no way to deny the strong delusion that GOD has
> placed in your mind.
>
> It is obvious to the most casual observer who is following
> this thread.
So far this is only your opinion, as nobody else is
participating, furthermore for your claim to know what others
might think, if they read this exchange is again very hilarious
to behold.
>
> Denial is expected from the deluded.
Oh is this why you deny constantly, when shown wrong?
>
>> , while in fact you claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit,
>> one could see this as delusion on your part just as well.
>
> It remains my choice to continue to write truthfully under the
> guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Alas I wish this was the case... see below....
>
>> >> >> So how come that the person who was filled with the
>> >> >> Holy Spirit didn't know who the Son of God is!
>> >> >
>> >> > This serves to teach that we are not born with such
>> >> > knowledge but that such knowledge of Christ comes only
>> >> > from GOD the Holy Spirit. This is reiterated when Simon
>> >> > Peter correctly answered Jesus' question "Who do you say
>> >> > I am?" and Jesus stated that his answer could only come
>> >> > from GOD.
>> >>
>> >> So the "God the HOLY Spirit" is at the same time God the
>> >> Father?
>> >
>> > "The Father is in ME just as I am in the Father." -- Holy
>> > Spirit
>>
>> Don't know which "Bible" this *quote* is coming from, *MY*
>> KJV says *JESUS* was saying this:
>>
>> John 17 20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also
>> which shall believe on me through their word; 21 That they
>> all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee,
>> that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe
>> that thou hast sent me. 22 And the glory which thou gavest
>> me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are
>> one: 23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made
>> perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast
>> sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.
>
> Amen !
Now hold on a minute, you made the claim that it was the *Holy*
*Spirit* that said
"The Father is in ME just as I am in the Father." -- Holy
Spirit
And now when
shown wrong you
wanna pass this by in a hurry
hoping
one wouldn't
dwell on this contradiction of yours?
No "Dr Hilarious" this is exactly the reason why the nick fits
you, no denying, otherwise it is prove that you just as deluded
as you accuse me of.
<big grin>
>
>> >> Matthew 16 15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I
>> >> am? 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the
>> >> Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answered
>> >> and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for
>> >> flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my
>> >> Father which is in heaven. So Jesus here says that God
>> >> the Father *revealed* this to truth to Peter, and not the
>> >> God the *HOLY SPIRIT*.
>> >
>> > See above.
>> >
>> >> But of course in reality "Matthew" might have gotten it
>> >> wrong, and the *HOLY SPIRIT* is using you to point out the
>> >> errors crept into the Bible when "Holy Spirit/God/Jesus"
>> >> *INSPIRED* THE GOSPEL-AUTHORS....
>> >
>> > The Bible remains holy.
>>
>> The Bible isn't God.
>
> The Bible is GOD-breathed.
And how does this in anyway counter the fact that *IS* NOT GOD?
>
>> >> Nice diverting away from the point, I'm not talking about
>> >> us, or Peter but about John/t/B. John/t/B said he didn't
>> >> know who Christ was/is *before* he saw the sign. You can
>> >> invent all excuses now, to make this contradiction go
>> >> away, but **you will fail.**
>
> **emphasis** added.
Don't change *MY* text!
>
>> > Without the Holy Spirit, you will always be a false
>> > prophet.
>>
>> Have I *prophesied* something? AFAIR I was *speaking* of the
>> past. A past over 2000 years ago, so now you're bearing false
>> witness, another indication that you know your cornered on
>> that point.
>
> See **emphasis** above.
>
>> But speaking about a *false* prophet....
>
> See **emphasis** below.
>
>> From nos...@heartmdphd.com Thu Jan 19 15:25:20 2006 From:
>> "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <nos...@heartmdphd.com> Subject:
>> Re: Forward your concerns to the European Baptist Federation
>> Date: 19 Jan 2006 05:34:45 -0800 Message-ID:
>> <1137677685....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
>>
>> <CUT>
>>
>> David Matthieu P.P. wrote:
>> > Private E-mails that were sent to the Baptist Pastor Lothar
>> > Lessee have been published on several Usenet Public
>> > Newsgroups with the intent to denigrate and vilify a Poster
>> > regarding her sexual Orientation.
>>
>> The **possible** global devastation on 3/29/2006 should be a
>> greater concern for all.
>
> **emphasis** added.
>
> Advisories are not prophecies.
Excuses now nothing but excuses you come up with,
"Dr Hilarious".
In the two years I have on and off read (and yes I read more
posts then I responded to) so far nobody came up with a much
more fitting nym then "Dr Hilarious".
If the shoe fits wear it... :-)
>
>> No. GOD the Holy Spirit gave John the Baptist an
>> understanding of what he was witnessing. ======== Lets
>> recall that John/t/B was filled with the Holy Spirit....
>
> John the Baptist and the Holy Spirit are two different
> persons.
"Weak" "Dr Hilarious" your response is so weak.. So here we have
a person who was filled with the *HOLY SPIRIT* all his life, and
still needed a sign from heaven. OK lets see the *Holy Spirit*
in action:
Luke 2
25 And, behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name
was Simeon; and the same man was just and devout, waiting
for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon
him.
26 And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he
should not see death, before he had seen the Lord's Christ.
27 And he came by the Spirit into the temple: and when the
parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him after the
custom of the law,
28 Then took he him up in his arms, and blessed God, and
said,
29 Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace,
according to thy word:
30 For mine eyes have seen thy salvation,
See this *person* wasn't filled with the Holy Spirit from birth
and he knew without a shadow of doubt who Christ was/is...
>
>> >> Of course with your claim that the "Holy Spirit" is
>> >> teaching you, you can invent all kind of funny scenarios.
>> >
>> > It remains my choice to continue to accept the guidance of
>> > the Holy Spirit in everything I say, do, and write.
>>
>> The question arises if the *guidance* you RECEIVE is really
>> from the Holy Spirit...
>
> The question is answered by simply surfing the links below my
> sigs.
I told you, if you want me to see it, *POST* IT here!
>
>> >> > "It is my heavenly Father's job to judge, the Holy
>> >> > Spirit's job to convict, and my job to love." - Reverend
>> >> > Billy Graham
>> >>
>> >> And you find the words of Billy Graham in the Bible at
>> >> which pages?
>> >
>> > It seems to be your choice to continue to attempt to limit
>> > the infinite powers of GOD to the ink on the pages of the
>> > Bible.
>>
>> Ah yeah, this is why you can accept choice portions of the
>> holy Koran. But why stick in the past, why don't you accept
>> the teachings of people in our time, Mose David (children of
>> God) S.M.Moon (the south Korean fella who claims to be the
>> second coming of Christ), they all claim that *GOD*
>> Jesus/Holy Spirit is speaking to them in *our* language a
>> message for our time. Maybe there would be something for
>> you!
>
> It remains my choice to refrain from judging others per the
> kind and helpful suggestion of LORD Jesus Christ (Matthew
> 7:1-2)
Yet "Dr Hilarious" you have judged me now in several posts as
being *deluded*! Claiming that I'm deluded is not PASSING
judgment on me?
>
>> > In the Holy Spirit, I know most assuredly without doubt
>> > that you will continue to fail. This victory is HIS. Laus
>> > Deo !
>>
>> If God is the victor, this doesn't mean *you* are partaking
>> in this.
>
> For your worldview, you will remain strongly deluded.
You *know* my worldview, that you can pass this judgment on me?
State my "worldview", below:
======================================================
======================================================
So once again you live up to your new nick "Dr Hilarious".
>
>> >> >> Matthew 3 13 Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan
>> >> >> unto John, to be baptized of him. 14 But John forbad
>> >> >> him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and
>> >> >> comest thou to me?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Matthew 3 17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This
>> >> >> is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> What? *BEFORE* John/t/B saw the dove and heard the
>> >> >> voice (something John/G/A lets drop from the text) he
>> >> >> knew that Jesus would be baptizing people.
>> >> >
>> >> > Correct. See above understanding of John 1:29-34 aided
>> >> > by the counsel (see **emphasis**) of the Holy Spirit.
>> >>
>> >> You don't grasp the time-frame of all this?
>> >>
>> >> John doesn't know who Christ was/is this is what he says.
>> >> Yet Matthew claims John/t/B knew that Jesus was more then
>> >> just a carpenter, the very same who brings a baptism John
>> >> needs.
>> >
>> > Most assuredly without doubt, John the Baptist knew the
>> > identity of Christ Jesus from the outset not by **himself**
>> > but via the Holy Spirit.
>>
>> One could have this conclusion if one basses his
>> *assumptions* on the *hearsay* of John/G/A.
>
> In the Holy Spirit, there is no heresay.
See "Dr Hilarious" I wasn't talking about false *doctrines*...
>
> Most assuredly without doubt, St. John remains in the Holy
> Spirit.
>
>> While Matthew paints a different picture.
>
> Matthew is a different witness.
Who too wasn't present at the Jordan when Jesus met John/t/B, or
in the wilderness with Jesus to know the dialog of Jesus with
Satan/Devil...
>
>> Yet filled with the "Holy Spirit John/t/B later doubts that
>> Jesus is the Christ.
>
> All humans doubt while threatened with decapitation.
You could post the passage that says this, that at that time he
was threatened by it. Fact is *YOU* don't seem to know that many
people found *strength* to *STRONGLY* AFFIRM God and Jesus when
they were facing torture and pain. One such person I met many
years ago, "Pastor Richard Wumbrand", who was in jail for 14
years.....
>
> "All humans fall short of the glory of GOD." -- Holy Spirit
Maybe because he plants *delusions* in them too....
<big grin>
>
>> >> >> Matthew 3 11 I indeed baptize you with water unto
>> >> >> repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier
>> >> >> than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall
>> >> >> baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> So by all means we have now *contradictions*
>> >> >> established between two "Gospel Authors" one John/t/B
>> >> >> not knowing, while in the other he *knew* that Jesus
>> >> >> was having a baptism John/t/B needed too.
>> >> >
>> >> > There is no contradiction for those with hearts made
>> >> > discerning by the Holy Spirit.
>> >>
>> >> I prefer to think with my head "Dr. Hilarious"
>> >
>> > Name-calling simply shows that you remain lost.
>>
>> You should wear the name with pride and honor, as it fits you
>> to a "T".
>
> If you wore "Lost" on a T-Shirt, folks would think you are
> advertising for a TV show but those who really know you will
> really know what it means.
Sadly, "Dr Hilarious" you *DO NOT* know me.
>
>> >>, as my heart is a muscle pumping blood through my body...
>> >
>> > The heart of your soul is filled with an evil spirit who
>> > drives you to sin.
>>
>> "Your opinion is meaningless"
>
> Observation by a cardiologist concerning what is in your heart
> is neither meaningless nor opinion.
Wanna get some praise for being a MD, "Dr Hilarious"?
Your professional opinion means squat to me, especially in your
case I get at least 3 other professionals opinion as to rely on
you.
>
>> > The wages of sin is death.
>>
>> Saul/Paul's claim...
>
> The truth.
>
>> > For this reason, your soul will die.
>>
>> Nope it will return to God who gave it to me.
>
> Not without faith in LORD Jesus Christ.
>
> "I am the way, the truth, and the life ... " -- LORD Jesus
> Christ
I have faith in God who send Jesus as his Messiah.
>
>> >> > Again, see above Holy Spirit-led understanding of John
>> >> > 1:29-34.
>> >>
>> >> Is this the same Holy Spirit that needed a sign from
>> >> himself to know that Jesus is the Christ?
>> >
>> > It is John the Baptist who needed the sign of seeing the
>> > Holy Spirit light on Christ Jesus to fulfill the prophecy
>> > given to him by the Holy Spirit.
>>
>> So now you wanna *separate* John/t/B from the *Holy Spirit*..
>
> They are separate persons.
That might be the case, John still supposedly was filled for 30
years with the *Holy Spirit* and his parents knew that Jesus
their relative was/is the Christ, yet this Holy Spirit filled
person needed a sign from heaven.
>
>> Doesn't jive with the account in Matthew, that John knew
>> Jesus was the one bringing the greater baptism.
>
> Again, John knew this not by himself but via the Holy Spirit.
Not if one as I have done put both accounts side by side and
compares them.
<cut as this getting too long>
June 1978
Folks who have no vices have very few virtues.
-- Uncle Al
The Demon Prince of Absurdity
Kurator did the cha-cha, and screamed:
> "Dr Hilarious" aka Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD in on 2006-09-17
> announced this statement:
>> Werner -the Christian Agnostic- Kurator wrote:
>>
>>< read, noted, and snipped>
>>
>>> Andrew wrote:
>>
>>> > Many have asked for the source of the quote in the past as archived
>>> > in Google and you will find each time that I did not name the source
>>> > until now.
>>>
>>> Which means that you made up the claim just recently, would be the
>>> plain truth.
>>
>> Not for the discerning.
>
> To which you most certainly can't be counted.
May I just say, in reply to the entirety of this fine poast: <WHOMP!>
--
________________________________________________________________________
Hail Eris! TM#5; COOSN-029-06-71069
Cardinal Snarky of the Fannish Inquisition
http://www6.kingdomofloathing.com/login.php
http://www.runescape.com/
No one expects the Fannish Inquisition!
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Cabal_of_the_Holy_Pretzel/join
"Etymology:
Argumentum ad Septicus : argument to putrefaction. Derived from Septicum
Argumentum : putrefaction of argument.
"Septic \Sep"tic\, Septical \Sep"tic*al\
a. [L. septicus to make putrid: cf. F. septique.]
Having power to promote putrefaction. Of or relating to or
caused by putrefaction." -- Kadaitcha Man, indirectly to
Donald "Skeptic"/"Septic" Alford, in MID: <a3svh.d...@news.alt.net>
"I never fail to be amazing" -- Looney Maroon for September 2006 nominee
William Barwell's ego knows no bounds. MID:
12ggt3q...@corp.supernews.com
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> > Werner - the Atheist - Kurator wrote:
> >> Andrew wrote:
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> You changed what I typed. I guess I hit a soft-spot here, and
> your pride is hurt...
It remains my choice to continue to die to self everyday.
> But if you claim that I'm a "Atheist" then
> your *bearing* false witness
Would suggest you reread the "Subject:" line.
> "Dr Hilarious".
Again, name-calling simply continues to show that you remain lost.
> If I were one I
> wouldn't mind saying so.
Again, would suggest you reread the "Subject:" line.
> <cut old stuff>
<your floundering snipped>
> >
> > In my walk with Christ Jesus, HE keeps me completely well
> > while you serve to show the strong delusion HE has placed in
> > your mind.
>
> Yawn......
Sorry this bores you. Please forgive all my iniquities.
> So God who is supposedly concerned about me, finding
> the truth (and you wish that my heart keeps beating for that
> end) at the same time places delusions into the minds of those
> whom he supposedly wants to save.... kind of hilarious and of
> course very weird..
Without the LORD, your opinions remain meaningless (Ecclesiastes).
> >> And again your being named Andrew (by your parents, the pope
> >> or any other person in the Universe) has the importance as a
> >> wet fart in your pants to me... So will you claim that your
> >> parents who seemed to be of Chinese stock were Christians,
> >> before you were born.
> >
> > Nothing happens by chance but everything that folks would
> > opine to be random happens by GOD (Proverbs 16:33).
>
> So where is the free will you claim?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/b1957ab18d3c93f1?
<your floundering snipped>
> > You have absolutely no other explanation for why you had
> > previously failed to understand that Andrew was present from
> > the outset to witness John's testimony concerning his
> > knowledge of Jesus' identity.
>
> Again you fail to understand that I was speaking about
> "John/Gospel/Author", he wasn't present when John/t/Baptist
> supposedly gave the his testimony. If I'm wrong, then *post* the
> passage that says John/G/A was there! HE wasn't.
Andrew and the Holy Spirit being present is sufficient for explaining
Apostle John's knowledge of John the Baptist's testimony.
> And as to the disciple called Andrew, (not you "Dr Hilarious")
> *NOWHERE* DOES it say that he too was present at the *first*
> day, that he was there at the *second* isn't disputed by me at
> all. On the first day he could have been at some other location.
"Andrew, Simon Peter's brother, was one of the two who heard what John
had said and who had followed Jesus." (John 1:40)
Bottomline: You remain strongly deluded.
In the Holy Spirit, John the Baptist knew beforehand that his
incarceration would end with decapitation.
> >> *HOLY SPIRIT* filled having seen the sign (maybe didn't hear
> >> the voice as there was none?) and then still later doubts
> >> that Jesus is the one...
> >
> > This served to show that John the Baptist was indeed human.
>
> Served whom? You maybe, to me John was *human* from the fact
> that his parents were named...
In a parallel thread, you confused both myself and John the Baptist
with the Holy Spirit.
> > GOD's strength is made perfect in our weakness especially when
> > we face death.
>
> And you know this from *personal* experience?
Yes. Indeed, HE has brought me back from death.
> >> >> > See **emphasis** above that was placed BEFORE you
> >> >> > revealed your strong delusion.
> >> >>
> >> >> Your opinion about me is useless.
> >> >
> >> > Observation is not opinion.
> >>
> >> Funny Dude when people like you can NOT win the arguments
> >> then they toss out the claim that others suffer from
> >> delusions
> >
> > There is no way to deny the strong delusion that GOD has
> > placed in your mind.
> >
> > It is obvious to the most casual observer who is following
> > this thread.
>
> So far this is only your opinion, as nobody else is
> participating, furthermore for your claim to know what others
> might think, if they read this exchange is again very hilarious
> to behold.
Silent witnesses are still witnesses.
> > Denial is expected from the deluded.
>
> Oh is this why you deny constantly, when shown wrong?
Again, it remains my choice to continue to write truthfully.
> >> , while in fact you claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit,
> >> one could see this as delusion on your part just as well.
> >
> > It remains my choice to continue to write truthfully under the
> > guidance of the Holy Spirit.
>
> Alas I wish this was the case...
It remains the case.
> see below....
See above.
The attribution remains correct.
Just as Christ Jesus is GOD so too is the Holy Spirit.
> And now when
> shown wrong you
> wanna pass this by in a hurry
> hoping
> one wouldn't
> dwell on this contradiction of yours?
Most assuredly without doubt, I know GOD to be kind, just, and right.
> No "Dr Hilarious" this is exactly the reason why the nick fits
> you, no denying, otherwise it is prove that you just as deluded
> as you accuse me of.
>
> <big grin>
Again, sorry to spoil your fun. Please forgive all my iniquities.
> >> >> Matthew 16 15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I
> >> >> am? 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the
> >> >> Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answered
> >> >> and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for
> >> >> flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my
> >> >> Father which is in heaven. So Jesus here says that God
> >> >> the Father *revealed* this to truth to Peter, and not the
> >> >> God the *HOLY SPIRIT*.
> >> >
> >> > See above.
> >> >
> >> >> But of course in reality "Matthew" might have gotten it
> >> >> wrong, and the *HOLY SPIRIT* is using you to point out the
> >> >> errors crept into the Bible when "Holy Spirit/God/Jesus"
> >> >> *INSPIRED* THE GOSPEL-AUTHORS....
> >> >
> >> > The Bible remains holy.
> >>
> >> The Bible isn't God.
> >
> > The Bible is GOD-breathed.
>
> And how does this in anyway counter the fact that *IS* NOT GOD?
In the same way the what you have written counters the fact that the
Bible is holy.
<your floundering snipped>
> > The lost lack the strength of the truth to resist the
> > tempation of descending into name-calling.
>
> In the two years I have on and off read (and yes I read more
> posts then I responded to) so far nobody came up with a much
> more fitting nym then "Dr Hilarious".
>
> If the shoe fits wear it... :-)
Without the LORD, your opinion remains meaningless (Ecclesiastes).
> > John the Baptist and the Holy Spirit are two different
> > persons.
>
> "Weak" "Dr Hilarious" your response is so weak.. So here we have
> a person who was filled with the *HOLY SPIRIT* all his life, and
> still needed a sign from heaven. OK lets see the *Holy Spirit*
> in action:
>
> Luke 2
> 25 And, behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name
> was Simeon; and the same man was just and devout, waiting
> for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon
> him.
> 26 And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he
> should not see death, before he had seen the Lord's Christ.
> 27 And he came by the Spirit into the temple: and when the
> parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him after the
> custom of the law,
>
> 28 Then took he him up in his arms, and blessed God, and
> said,
> 29 Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace,
> according to thy word:
> 30 For mine eyes have seen thy salvation,
>
> See this *person* wasn't filled with the Holy Spirit from birth
> and he knew without a shadow of doubt who Christ was/is...
Not by himself just as John the Baptist did not know by himself but via
the Holy Spirit.
> >> >> Of course with your claim that the "Holy Spirit" is
> >> >> teaching you, you can invent all kind of funny scenarios.
> >> >
> >> > It remains my choice to continue to accept the guidance of
> >> > the Holy Spirit in everything I say, do, and write.
> >>
> >> The question arises if the *guidance* you RECEIVE is really
> >> from the Holy Spirit...
> >
> > The question is answered by simply surfing the links below my
> > sigs.
>
> I told you, if you want me to see it, *POST* IT here!
"Those who do not work do not eat." -- Holy Spirit.
> >> >> > "It is my heavenly Father's job to judge, the Holy
> >> >> > Spirit's job to convict, and my job to love." - Reverend
> >> >> > Billy Graham
> >> >>
> >> >> And you find the words of Billy Graham in the Bible at
> >> >> which pages?
> >> >
> >> > It seems to be your choice to continue to attempt to limit
> >> > the infinite powers of GOD to the ink on the pages of the
> >> > Bible.
> >>
> >> Ah yeah, this is why you can accept choice portions of the
> >> holy Koran. But why stick in the past, why don't you accept
> >> the teachings of people in our time, Mose David (children of
> >> God) S.M.Moon (the south Korean fella who claims to be the
> >> second coming of Christ), they all claim that *GOD*
> >> Jesus/Holy Spirit is speaking to them in *our* language a
> >> message for our time. Maybe there would be something for
> >> you!
> >
> > It remains my choice to refrain from judging others per the
> > kind and helpful suggestion of LORD Jesus Christ (Matthew
> > 7:1-2)
>
> Yet "Dr Hilarious" you have judged me now in several posts as
> being *deluded*!
Observation is not judgment.
> Claiming that I'm deluded is not PASSING
> judgment on me?
No. It was not a claim but an observation.
> >> > In the Holy Spirit, I know most assuredly without doubt
> >> > that you will continue to fail. This victory is HIS. Laus
> >> > Deo !
> >>
> >> If God is the victor, this doesn't mean *you* are partaking
> >> in this.
> >
> > For your worldview, you will remain strongly deluded.
>
> You *know* my worldview, that you can pass this judgment on me?
> State my "worldview", below:
> ======================================================
There is no Holy Spirit.
> ======================================================
> So once again you live up to your new nick "Dr Hilarious".
Again your persistent name-calling shows that you remain persistently
lost.
The Holy Spirit was present both at the Jordan and in the
desert/wilderness.
This makes it possible for all who are in the Holy Spirit to witness
firsthand what transpired.
> >> Yet filled with the "Holy Spirit John/t/B later doubts that
> >> Jesus is the Christ.
> >
> > All humans doubt while threatened with decapitation.
>
> You could post the passage that says this, that at that time he
> was threatened by it. Fact is *YOU* don't seem to know that many
> people found *strength* to *STRONGLY* AFFIRM God and Jesus when
> they were facing torture and pain. One such person I met many
> years ago, "Pastor Richard Wumbrand", who was in jail for 14
> years.....
Was Pastor Richard Wumbrand threatened with decapitation?
> > "All humans fall short of the glory of GOD." -- Holy Spirit
>
> Maybe because he plants *delusions* in them too....
Those who have placed their faith in LORD Jesus Christ suffer from no
delusions.
> <big grin>
Sorry to keep spoiling your fun. Please forgive all my iniquities.
> >> >> >> Matthew 3 11 I indeed baptize you with water unto
> >> >> >> repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier
> >> >> >> than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall
> >> >> >> baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> So by all means we have now *contradictions*
> >> >> >> established between two "Gospel Authors" one John/t/B
> >> >> >> not knowing, while in the other he *knew* that Jesus
> >> >> >> was having a baptism John/t/B needed too.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > There is no contradiction for those with hearts made
> >> >> > discerning by the Holy Spirit.
> >> >>
> >> >> I prefer to think with my head "Dr. Hilarious"
> >> >
> >> > Name-calling simply shows that you remain lost.
> >>
> >> You should wear the name with pride and honor, as it fits you
> >> to a "T".
> >
> > If you wore "Lost" on a T-Shirt, folks would think you are
> > advertising for a TV show but those who really know you will
> > really know what it means.
>
> Sadly, "Dr Hilarious" you *DO NOT* know me.
If you were secure in the truth, you would have had the strength to
resist the temptation of descending back into name-calling.
> >> >>, as my heart is a muscle pumping blood through my body...
> >> >
> >> > The heart of your soul is filled with an evil spirit who
> >> > drives you to sin.
> >>
> >> "Your opinion is meaningless"
> >
> > Observation by a cardiologist concerning what is in your heart
> > is neither meaningless nor opinion.
>
> Wanna get some praise for being a MD
No.
All praise belongs to GOD, Whom I love with all my heart, soul, mind,
and strength.
>, "Dr Hilarious"?
Yet again, name-calling continues to confrim that you remain lost.
> Your professional opinion means squat to me, especially in your
> case I get at least 3 other professionals opinion as to rely on
> you.
Again, observation is not opinion.
> >> > The wages of sin is death.
> >>
> >> Saul/Paul's claim...
> >
> > The truth.
> >
> >> > For this reason, your soul will die.
> >>
> >> Nope it will return to God who gave it to me.
> >
> > Not without faith in LORD Jesus Christ.
> >
> > "I am the way, the truth, and the life ... " -- LORD Jesus
> > Christ
>
> I have faith in God who send Jesus as his Messiah.
Your disbelieving HIS Word proves your lack of faith.
> >> >> > Again, see above Holy Spirit-led understanding of John
> >> >> > 1:29-34.
> >> >>
> >> >> Is this the same Holy Spirit that needed a sign from
> >> >> himself to know that Jesus is the Christ?
> >> >
> >> > It is John the Baptist who needed the sign of seeing the
> >> > Holy Spirit light on Christ Jesus to fulfill the prophecy
> >> > given to him by the Holy Spirit.
> >>
> >> So now you wanna *separate* John/t/B from the *Holy Spirit*..
> >
> > They are separate persons.
>
> That might be the case, John still supposedly was filled for 30
> years with the *Holy Spirit* and his parents knew that Jesus
> their relative was/is the Christ, yet this Holy Spirit filled
> person needed a sign from heaven.
You persist in your strong delusion.
> >> Doesn't jive with the account in Matthew, that John knew
> >> Jesus was the one bringing the greater baptism.
> >
> > Again, John knew this not by himself but via the Holy Spirit.
>
> Not if one as I have done put both accounts side by side and
> compares them.
You remain strongly deluded.
Barry OGrady
>Werner -the Christian Agnostic- Kurator wrote:
>> Andrew wrote:
>> > Werner - the Atheist - Kurator wrote:
>> >> Andrew wrote:
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> You changed what I typed. I guess I hit a soft-spot here, and
>> your pride is hurt...
>
>It remains my choice to continue to die to self everyday.
Once would suffice as long as you stay dead.
Barry
=====
Home page
http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> On 17 Sep 2006 18:27:41 -0700, "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <lov...@thetruth.com> wrote:
>
> >Werner -the Christian Agnostic- Kurator wrote:
> >> Andrew wrote:
> >> > Werner - the Atheist - Kurator wrote:
> >> >> Andrew wrote:
> >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >> You changed what I typed. I guess I hit a soft-spot here, and
> >> your pride is hurt...
> >
> >It remains my choice to continue to die to self everyday.
>
> Once would suffice as long as you stay dead.
Sorry these posts bother you so terribly. Please forgive all my
iniquities.
May GOD continue to keep your heart beating, dear neighbor Barry whom I
Werner -the Christian Agnostic- Kurator
in <1158542861.6...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
on 2006-09-18 announced this statement:
> Werner -the Christian Agnostic- Kurator wrote:
>> Andrew wrote:
>> > Werner - the Atheist - Kurator wrote:
>> >> Andrew wrote:
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> You changed what I typed. I guess I hit a soft-spot here, and
>> your pride is hurt...
>
> It remains my choice to continue to die to self everyday.
I doubt that....
>
>> But if you claim that I'm a "Atheist" then
>> your *bearing* false witness
>
> Would suggest you reread the "Subject:" line.
My name doesn't appear in it.... at least not yet, but maybe
you will insert it now..... :-)
>
>> "Dr Hilarious".
>
> Again, name-calling simply continues to show that you remain lost.
Can you show me any "dictionary" that regards the *word* "HILARIOUS"
as a *cuss-word*? Or any *VARIATION* OF IT as *name-calling*?
Till then....
<cut>
BTW, I might deal with the rest of your mail at a later time....
A quick glance showed me again you how hilariously funny you are.
June 1978
The problem with America is stupidity. [...]
Why don't we just take the safety labels off
everything and let the problem solve itself?
-- <xterm> on IRC
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew wrote:
> > Werner -the Christian Agnostic- Kurator wrote:
> >> Andrew wrote:
> >> > Werner - the Atheist - Kurator wrote:
> >> >> Andrew wrote:
> >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >> You changed what I typed. I guess I hit a soft-spot here, and
> >> your pride is hurt...
> >
> > It remains my choice to continue to die to self everyday.
>
> I doubt that....
That would be your choice via the free will that GOD has generously
given all souls including those belong to fig trees (Mark 11:12-14, 20)
> >> But if you claim that I'm a "Atheist" then
> >> your *bearing* false witness
> >
> > Would suggest you reread the "Subject:" line.
>
> My name doesn't appear in it.... at least not yet, but maybe
> you will insert it now..... :-)
Putting your name in the "Subject:" line would serve only to confuse
you further.
> >
> >> "Dr Hilarious".
> >
> > Again, name-calling simply continues to show that you remain lost.
>
> Can you show me any "dictionary" that regards the *word* "HILARIOUS"
> as a *cuss-word*? Or any *VARIATION* OF IT as *name-calling*?
Denial is another anticipated characteristic of the lost.
> Till then....
May GOD continue to keep your heart beating to give you time to find
the way, dear neighbor Werner whom I love unconditionally.
Chuck Stamford
"lynx" <no...@nothere.com> wrote in message
news:8EJNg.28002$rP1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Chuck Stamford wrote:
>
>>"lynx" <no...@nothere.com> wrote in message
>>news:x6bNg.27218$rP1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>>>Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
>>>
>>>>lynx wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>"An agnostic is a closet atheist." -- Holy Spirit
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Actually, the Holy Spirit is neither a Christian nor an atheist.
>>>>
>>>>It logically follows from the fact that there is no such thing as
>>>>closet Christians, that indeed agnostics are closet atheists.
>>>>
>>>No it doesn't, as that argument supposes that one cannot 'be' an
>>>agnostic. It supposes that there is no such thing as an agnostic- that
>>>agnosticism is only a position that one moves or passes thru to some
>>>other. It denies that agnosticism is a legitimate position in it's own
>>>right. And besides, Christianity is not the only choice with regards
>>>theism. So the choice cannot be confined to only christian or atheist
>>>anyway, if one is not to be agnostic.
>>>
>>
>>Pete, you're not going to "get through" to Andrew. He sees anything he
>>says as beyond dispute.
>>
>
> I'm beginning to notice that.. :)
>
>
>>Of course you're right. Theism, taken as the belief that a (singular)
>>personal God and Creator of the cosmos exists, comes in other forms
>>besides Christianity. On that basis alone, Andrew's wrong to say what he
>>says. You don't even have to get into the epistemic status of being
>>agnostic about a particular proposition, or rack your brain trying to
>>figure out what a "closet" anything means in this context (personally, I
>>take it to mean only that Andrew doesn't have a clue as to what he's
>>talking about....but that's just me).
>>
>
> Thanks. It's somewhat disconcerting when I post what I consider to be a
> sound argument, and am still met with disagreement. So it's always helpful
> to have someone confirm that what I said makes sense.
>
>
>>
>>However, I would point out one of the less glorious aspects to
>>agnosticism. Of all the possible epistemic states in which I can be
>>relative to any given proposition, agnosticism guarantees, by its very
>>nature, that I will be wrong in my belief in regards to the truth or
>>falsehood of that proposition. For every proposition of every sort is
>>either true or false. I may be wrong as a theist, but at least I have the
>>possibility that I'm right. Same goes for the atheist. So even if there
>>is absolutely NO evidence available one way or the other regarding the
>>existence of God, even if it is impossible that there be any evidence (as
>>is the case with, say, counterfactual propositions), both the atheist and
>>I stand in a better epistemic state to that proposition than does the
>>agnostic. Of course, logic requires, on any correspondence theory of
>>truth, that one of us is wrong. But logic also requires that between two
>>agnostics about the same proposition, *both* are wrong.
>>
> Yes, theists and atheists 'can' be either right or wrong, but how can
> agnostics be wrong since their position is not having a position?
Sorry to be so long in responding, Pete. Took a little time off.
Anyway, to the question at hand:
Now I'm not even suggesting anything about what evidence there is for or
against the proposition "God exists" (with "God" being taken as it generally
is in theism); nor am I taking on the subject of whether or not one can have
a warranted belief in the truth of a proposition for which there is very
limited, or even no, "evidence", again, as we generally understand the
concept of evidence.
What I'm doing is stating the obvious, or what I'd suppose anyone who knows
anything about the fundamentals of logic would take to be obvious, and that
is that for any proposition one picks, it is either true or false. And that
therefore, any belief or disbelief in the proposition "God exists",
regardless of any evidence, or lack of any evidence, one way or the other,
has a better chance of being a belief that is actually true than does the
belief it is better to withhold belief both in its truth *and* in its
falsehood. Without even looking for any evidence here, the theist stands a
50-50 chance of holding a true belief, as does the atheist. It is only the
agnostic that stands no chance at all of having a true belief regarding this
particular proposition.
Chuck Stamford
The Demon Prince of Absurdity
screamed:
> "lynx" wrote...
>> Chuck Stamford wrote:
>>>"lynx" wrote...
Since I don't believe in holding beliefs -- no strong ones, anyway, -- I
suppose that might be a fair statement. However, one might also say that
I'm withholding judgment on a matter which cannot be definitively
resolved by a living being. One cannot rationally state "There is a God"
or "There is no God" while one is still alive. "I believe there is a
God" and "I believe there is no God" are beliefs not based in known
fact, but on faith in something which cannot be proven in any way that
matters. Therefore, I am an agnostic, because blind faith, belief
without proof, is more likely than not to lead one to commit atrocities.
Chuck Stamford
"Demon Lord of Confusion" <verwa...@verwirren.confused> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.09.12....@verwirren.confused...
> On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 19:46:38 -0700, Chuck Stamford attempted to confuse
> the issue further by squeaking:
>>> On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 08:51:21 -0700, Chuck Stamford attempted to confuse
>>> the issue further by squeaking:
>>>>> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
>>>>>>lynx wrote:
>>>>>>>Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"An agnostic is a closet atheist." -- Holy Spirit
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>And atheists say that agnostics are closet christians.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Actually, the Holy Spirit is neither a Christian nor an atheist.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It logically follows from the fact that there is no such thing as
>>>>>>closet Christians, that indeed agnostics are closet atheists.
>>>>>
>>>>> No it doesn't, as that argument supposes that one cannot 'be' an
>>>>> agnostic. It supposes that there is no such thing as an agnostic- that
>>>>> agnosticism is only a position that one moves or passes thru to some
>>>>> other. It denies that agnosticism is a legitimate position in it's own
>>>>> right. And besides, Christianity is not the only choice with regards
>>>>> theism. So the choice cannot be confined to only christian or atheist
>>>>> anyway, if one is not to be agnostic.
>>>>
>>>> Pete, you're not going to "get through" to Andrew. He sees anything he
>>>> says as beyond dispute.
>>>>
>>>> personal God and Creator of the cosmos exists, comes in other forms
>>>> besides Christianity. On that basis alone, Andrew's wrong to say what
>>>> he says. You don't even have to get into the epistemic status of being
>>>> agnostic about a particular proposition, or rack your brain trying to
>>>> figure out what a "closet" anything means in this context (personally,
>>>> I take it to mean only that Andrew doesn't have a clue as to what he's
>>>> talking about....but that's just me).
>>>>
>>>> agnosticism. Of all the possible epistemic states in which I can be
>>>> relative to any given proposition, agnosticism guarantees, by its very
>>>> nature, that I will be wrong in my belief in regards to the truth or
>>>> falsehood of that proposition. For every proposition of every sort is
>>>> either true or false. I may be wrong as a theist, but at least I have
>>>> the
>>>> possibility that I'm right. Same goes for the atheist. So even if
>>>> there is absolutely NO evidence available one way or the other
>>>> regarding the existence of God, even if it is impossible that there be
>>>> any evidence (as is the case with, say, counterfactual propositions),
>>>> both the atheist and I stand in a better epistemic state to that
>>>> proposition than does the agnostic. Of course, logic requires, on any
>>>> correspondence theory of truth, that one of us is wrong. But logic
>>>> also requires that between two agnostics about the same proposition,
>>>> *both* are wrong.
>>>
>>> atheism is correct, and doubt I ever will. I'm not "wrong" if I haven't
>>> /chosen/. And, as I've said elsewhere, pantheistic multiperson solipsism
>>> remains the best bet.
>>
>> For what you say here to be true, that you are "not wrong" in withholding
>> belief in both a proposition and it's denial, you'd have to be using
>> "wrong" in some other sense than having a true belief about that
>> true. It's not an opinion, open to debate. It's necessarily true if
>> anything at all is true.
>
I'm not sure what you're referring to here as a "presupposition", but if
it's to my claim that all propositions are either true or false, then I'd
suggest that before you form an opinion on the matter, humble or otherwise,
you state some grounds for it. Give me an example of a state of affairs
(and that's what propositions are!) that neither obtains, nor doesn't not
obtain...or conversely, that both obtains and does not obtain.
>
>> Now perhaps you believe that your withholding belief in both the
>> proposition "God exists" (taken as I've outlined above) and it's denial
>> isn't "wrong", in the sense you don't believe that epistemic position
>> violates any epistemic duty you have, or perhaps, best fulfills that
>> duty.
>> Maybe you believe, with some others, that it is always wrong, in every
>> case, to believe a proposition or deny it in the absence of compelling
>> evidence one way or the other. But all that is beside the point of my
>> remarks above, which aren't about any *other* beliefs you have
>> concerning,
>> or "in the neighborhood" of, or in support of your agnostic stance toward
>> *this* proposition.
>
> Both theists and atheists take faith-based stances on matters which cannot
> be proven one way or the other, short of death, hence there is no rational
> basis for choosing one over the other. Therefore, as a Discordian, I
> choose both and neither.
I take it you're just repeating, in your own words, what I've just said
above about believing you're within your epistemic "rights", having
fulfilled your epistemic "duty" (however you define "duty" here) in
withholding belief regarding the proposition "God exists".
>
>> All I pointed out is that for every proposition that exists, it is
>> necessarily true, if anything is true at all, the either it, or it's
>> denial is true, which is to say that the proposition "A or not A" is such
>> that it is impossible that it be false. And given that necessary truth
>> of
>> logic, it follows that an agnostic as to ANY proposition is in an
>> epistemic state where it is impossible that their belief **as to the
>> truth
>> or falsehood of that proposition** is true.
>
> Since I have no such belief at all, however, apart from the firm belief
> that it is a mistake to hold firm beliefs;-{P}, it would be closer to
> the truth to say that I am in a state more akin to that of
> Schroedinger's Cat, not believing in either truth or falsehood without
> substantiating evidence one way or the other.
Again, I take it you don't mean you're in a state akin to Schroedinger's Cat
(which would make you half dead and half alive...at least according to a
fashionable interpretation of the thought experiment), but in the epistemic
state of the observer of the box containing SC.
And I'll take your claim to hold a firm belief that it is a mistake to hold
firm beliefs as the tongue in cheek claim you obviously meant it to be.
However, I think you're making a mistake in using it to paper over an
important topic...but that's entirely up to you. Epistemology is a
fascinating subject.
As there is no possibility
> of any such evidence being forthcoming anytime soon, agnosticism and PMS
> remain my metaphysical guides. And yes, the acronym has me grinning like
> a loon.
Not knowing you from Zeus' left elbow, I have no idea why it would make you
grin, nor what you intended by it. I hope you're not one of those arrogant
fools who thinks the entire world, and everyone in it, is to be judged by
how well they can correctly interpret your cryptic remarks. Because if you
are, this is going to be a *very* short dialogue. I know what people I've
never met, from places I've never been mean when they state them clearly and
concisely in English...and ONLY then.
But you might consider adding this little gem to your metaphysical tools:
Find a generalization for "justified belief" you can actually express (using
terms you can clearly define), and according to which you *consistently*
maintain the belief structure that you have. I'm not suggesting you tell
me, or anyone else what it is, or that you put it into the public domain to
be debated, but at a minimum you should have one!
Chuck Stamford
Barry OGrady
>Now I'm not even suggesting anything about what evidence there is for or
>against the proposition "God exists" (with "God" being taken as it generally
>is in theism); nor am I taking on the subject of whether or not one can have
>a warranted belief in the truth of a proposition for which there is very
>limited, or even no, "evidence", again, as we generally understand the
>concept of evidence.
>
>What I'm doing is stating the obvious, or what I'd suppose anyone who knows
>anything about the fundamentals of logic would take to be obvious, and that
>is that for any proposition one picks, it is either true or false.
Yes but, in the case of God it can depend on what the person calls God.
>And that
>therefore, any belief or disbelief in the proposition "God exists",
>regardless of any evidence, or lack of any evidence, one way or the other,
>has a better chance of being a belief that is actually true than does the
>belief it is better to withhold belief both in its truth *and* in its
>falsehood. Without even looking for any evidence here, the theist stands a
>50-50 chance of holding a true belief, as does the atheist. It is only the
>agnostic that stands no chance at all of having a true belief regarding this
>particular proposition.
No. The claim of the agnostic that they don't know is true.
>Chuck Stamford
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
Barry OGrady <god_fre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >What I'm doing is stating the obvious, or what I'd suppose anyone who knows
> >anything about the fundamentals of logic would take to be obvious, and that
> >is that for any proposition one picks, it is either true or false.
if you knew anything about the fundamentals of logic
you would know that concept is highly debatable
some systems of logic do not have excluded middle
in such systems (p or not p) is only meaningful
if p is provable or p is deniable
meow arf meow - they are performing horrible experiments in space
major grubert is watching you - beware the bakalite
there can only be one or two - the airtight garage has you neo
Kadaitcha Man
negligent matador, panted:
> I don't believe in holding beliefs -- no strong ones, anyway,
Big mistake, Snarky. It is wise to hold the strong belief that you will be
mangled to a pulp if you stand on railway tracks and try to face down a
speeding, oncoming train.
--
alt.usenet.kooks - Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker:
September 2005 and April 2006
"K-Man's particular genius, however, lies not merely in his humour,
but his ability to make posters who had previously seemed reasonably
well-balanced turn into foaming, frothing, death threat-uttering
maniacs" - Snarky, Demon Lord of Confusion
Chuck Stamford
lacquerer of dead beetles and other small insects, discharged:
> FUCKING ARSE-LOVER BALD DICK BITCH'S BLIND I'm not sure what you're
> FUCKING PISS TUBE referring to here as a FUCKING DOLLY-MOP CAR WHORE
> DUDES "presupposition", but if it's to FUCKING TURD-EATER my claim
> that all propositions FUCKING ARSE-GUNNER are either true or false,
> FUCKING COP A FEEL then I'd suggest that before FUCKING BELLY SLAPPER
> you form an opinion on FUCKING BUM BASHER the matter, humble or
> otherwise, FUCKING MR BAT SHIT TART BLAME IT ON THE NIGGERS you state
> some grounds for FUCKING BULLSHIT ANAL NINJA COCKSUCKER EASY-PICK-UP
> ANAL-JOYRIDER it. Give me an FUCKING DINK example of a state of
> FUCKING BLACK SNAKE affairs (and that's what propositions FUCKING
> ARSE-THRASHER are!) that neither obtains, nor FUCKING LITTLE SISTER
> DICKHEAD BOOZIES FUCKSTICK doesn't not obtain...or conversely, that
> FUCKING BITCHY MOTHERFUCKER both obtains and does not FUCKING PARIAH
> obtain. GENITAL WARTS ASSWIPE SLAPPER BONER CRABS
> FUCKING DROP YOUR LOAD I take it you're just FUCKING ERECTION BOOTS
> AND SPOOKS FAG repeating, in your own words, FUCKING SUCK COP A FEEL
> what I've just said above FUCKING FUCKING BITCH about believing you're
> within your FUCKING BELLY WOMAN epistemic "rights", having fulfilled
> your FUCKING SHIT-FACE epistemic "duty" (however you define FUCKING
> SHITFACE "duty" here) in withholding belief FUCKING CLIT regarding the
> proposition "God exists". FUCKING HUSSY SHITHEAD PUBIC HAIR CUNT
> SCRAPER TIT RIMJOB CUNNILINGUS BONER FELCHER VIRGIN LIKE IT DIRTY
> FUCKING TARBABY Since I have no such FUCKING CUNT LICKER belief at
> all, however, apart FUCKING FUCK FACE from the firm belief that
> FUCKING PENIS HEAD it is a mistake to FUCKING BONE BAG hold firm
> beliefs;-{P}, it would FUCKING COMMON TART WHORE SHEEP FUCKER LESBIAN
> DAMN IT be closer to the truth FUCKING TART to say that I am FUCKING
> TRANSGENDER in a state more akin FUCKING LET THE NIGGER GIRL DO IT
> FERAL BITCH to that of Schroedinger's Cat, FUCKING SLEAZE-SLUT
> BUTTFUCK FAGDYKE BALD DICK not believing in either truth FUCKING
> COOTER or falsehood without substantiating evidence FUCKING BONE ACHE
> one way or the other. FUCKING TITTIES CUNT-STRETCHER CUM CUM WANK
> FUCKING PROSTITUTE TART ANAL-BORER FUCKED Again, I take it you don't
> FUCKING AMMUNITION-WHORE SACK OF SHIT mean you're in a state akin
> FUCKING BITCHED UP CRAP BONE HEAD to Schroedinger's Cat (which would
> make FUCKING HUMPER BITCHY DICKBREATH you half dead and half
> alive...at FUCKING GANG-RAPE FLOPPY TITS least according to a
> fashionable interpretation FUCKING WHORE PISSING of the thought
> experiment), but in FUCKING SPLIT-ARSE BROAD TARBABY COCK
> CUNT-FOR-HIRE the epistemic state of the observer FUCKING STRUMPET of
> the box containing SC. And FUCKING ANAL-COPULATOR I'll take your claim
> to hold FUCKING COOTER a firm belief that it is FUCKING FUCKED TART
> SLUT POLACK a mistake to hold firm beliefs FUCKING SON OF A BITCH JACK
> OFF as the tongue in cheek claim FUCKING TWAT-PEDDLER EASY-LAY CLITTY
> NEW JERSEY NIGGER FUCK-BUNNY you obviously meant it to be. FUCKING
> BLACK JOCK SHIT However, I think you're making a FUCKING PENIS BREATH
> HOOKER mistake in using it to paper FUCKING BITCHES' BLINDS BLOW JOB
> HOOKER over an important topic...but that's entirely FUCKING
> ANAL-INTRUDER BEAT MOLL SLUT up to you. Epistemology is FUCKING
> GRASS-BACK GROIN a fascinating subject. HOMO SMEGMA I'D DO YOU VIRGIN
> BONER SACK BUTT MURDER
> FUCKING CAB-MOLL SLUT SHAG-BAG BITCH TIT SUCKER HARD-BOILER FUCK UP
> BRA BUSTERS CIRCLE JERK DINK COCKY NIGGER As there is no possibility
> BREASTS SHIT FANNY POO CRAP COCKSUCKER PUSSY
> FUCKING FUCK Not knowing you from Zeus' FUCKING LET THE NIGGER GIRL DO
> IT left elbow, I have no FUCKING PORK POUNDING idea why it would make
> FUCKING MR BAT SHIT WHORE BLOOD SPORTS you grin, nor what you FUCKING
> GODDAMN DITCH SLUT BREASTIES HELL intended by it. I FUCKING CAR WHORE
> hope you're not one of FUCKING FLEA BAGGER those arrogant fools who
> thinks FUCKING ARSE-BANDIT BONE BAG the entire world, and everyone
> FUCKING HARD-BOILER in it, is to be FUCKING FERAL BITCH judged by how
> well they FUCKING BOYS TART can correctly interpret your cryptic
> FUCKING SLUTTY BITCH JACKING OFF STUPID remarks. Because if you
> FUCKING WOP are, this is going to FUCKING BRISTOLS be a *very* short
> dialogue. FUCKING BEARDED CLAM I know what people FUCKING LESBIAN
> I've never met, from places FUCKING GODDAMMIT I've never been mean
> when FUCKING UGLY CUNT they state them clearly and FUCKING HARLOT
> HURRY-WHORE concisely in English...and ONLY then. FUCKING JIZZ DRINKER
> But you might consider adding FUCKING ERECTION this little gem to your
> FUCKING BALL-CUTTER TART ARSE-GUNNER metaphysical tools: Find a
> generalization FUCKING HUSSY NYMPHO SLAPPER FAST-GIRL SLUT for
> "justified belief" you can FUCKING BONE HEAD DUMB ASS BUTTHEAD
> actually express (using terms you FUCKING SCREW FAST-FANNY GAPING
> SNATCH ASS-SELLER can clearly define), and according FUCKING
> BUTTPICKER to which you *consistently* maintain FUCKING HELL COCKY
> NIGGER the belief structure that you FUCKING DICKSMACK have. I'm not
> suggesting FUCKING NIGGER SHIT you tell me, or anyone FUCKING
> BREASTIES BALLS else what it is, or FUCKING FUCKFACE FUCK YOU
> GUTTER-SLUT that you put it into FUCKING CUNTBREATH the public domain
> to be FUCKING WHORE debated, but at a minimum FUCKING TITS you should
> have one! Chuck FUCKING FUCKFACE Stamford BASTARD MAIN VEIN RAPE
> BITCH
The God of Odd Statements
> The Demon Prince of Absurdity, the negligent matador, panted:
>
>> I don't believe in holding beliefs -- no strong ones, anyway,
>
> Big mistake, Snarky. It is wise to hold the strong belief that you will be
> mangled to a pulp if you stand on railway tracks and try to face down a
> speeding, oncoming train.
Well, yes, but I just avoid doing that sort of thing.;-{P}
--
________________________________________________________________________
Hail Eris! mhm 29x21; TM#5
Demon Lord of Confusion
COOSN-029-06-71069
Supreme High Overlord of rec.radio.*
Chuck Lysaght: Tarred & Feathered!
"It would be offly hard for any of you to abuse me on usenet. Really. I
have the advantage. I could easily turn alt.usenet.kooks into a cesspool
of encoded posts. Bringing the noise ratio up so high as to make the
group worthless. Anybody who can code could do this, why nobody has
bothered before now is beyond me. The ultimate spamming engine..
'BAWAHAHA'" -- Dustbin "Outer Filth" K00k's delusions of grandeur
reached new heights, in Message-ID:
<Xns98355D29419...@69.28.186.121>