Daily Spirit-guided thought for 03/29/08.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
May dear neighbors, friends, and brethren have a blessedly wonderful
2008th year since the birth of our LORD Jesus Christ as the Son of
Man ...
... by being hungrier:
http://TruthRUS.org/KnowingGOD
Hunger is wonderful:
It's how we know what GOD wants, which is what is good.
Yes, hunger is our knowledge of good versus evil that Adam and Eve
paid for with their and our immortal lives.
Those who suffer from the powerful delusion predicted by the prophecy
of 2 Thessalonians 2:9-11 would deny this and perish ( gone !!! )
forever ...
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts/CrazyOne
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts/CrazyTwo
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts/CrazyThree
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts/CrazyFour
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts/Bob
... gone:
http://YouTube.com/watch?v=Qb6d_z5C35E
Such will be the demise of all those who refuse to know **and** love
the truth, Who is LORD Jesus Christ:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Love/TheTruth
Be hungry... be healthy... be hungrier... be blessed:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/BeBlessed
"Blessed are you who hunger NOW...
... for you will be satisfied." -- LORD Jesus Christ (Luke 6:21)
Amen.
http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/Luke6_21
A simple parable for the wise and discerning:
Be hungry... be healthy... be hungrier... be healthier:
http://TheWellnessFoundation.com/BeHealthier
Prayerfully in the infinite power and might of the Holy Spirit,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Lawful steward of http://EmoryCardiology.com
A latter-day disciple of the KING of kings and LORD of lords.
http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/DiscipleNow
J A
<heartdo...@emorycardiology.com> wrote:
> http://ABChung.LiveJournal.com/103275.html
>
> May dear neighbors, friends, and brethren have a blessedly wonderful
The whole thing is a myth with many obvious factual errors. The
gospels of the New Testament contradict each other on important
points.
These books were written decades after the crucifixion by unknown
authors. Even the dating of the birth of Jesus in the gospels is
unclear and contains misstatements of fact.
The Gospel according to Luke says that Jesus was born in the year when
Caesar Augustus ordered a census for the purpose of taxation and that
this happened at a time when Herod reigned in Judea and when Quirinius
was governor of Syria.
The problem is that Herod died four years before Christ and that
during his time of ruling, the governor of Syria was not Quirinius .
The only historical mention of a census ordered by Augustus was by the
Jewish historian Josephus, but that happened six years after Jesus was
supposed to have been born, and did not require people to return to
their places of birth.
Probably, the reason for all this confusion stems from the fact that
the Old Testament prediction for Messiah has him coming from
Bethlehem. Big problem -- Jesus's parents were apparently from the
town of Nazareth and if they had a child he probably would have been
delivered there.
The whole thing is a myth with many obvious factual errors.
monkfish
It's also possible that
people turned certain facts into a myth
by imposing their misunderstandings on them.
Just think about it a little.
At that time, most people believed that
humans can turn into gods,
augurs can predict the future, and
magicians can turn water into wine.
Still they knew that
a regular person cannot be born from a virgin,
a regular person cannot raise the dead, and
a regular person cannot come back to life after death.
So, something wonderful must have happened
for them to feel the need to invent a myth.
There was a special person, maybe?
--
monkfish
J A
Wrong. That would be an equally good argument for Zeus, Neptune, Mars
etc.
Myths about virgin births, having gods for parents, rising from the
dead, miracle cures, etc., existed for many centuries before "jesus".
They simply created a new myth by borrowing from old ones.
There's an easy way for supernaturalists to prove atheists wrong -
simply have their supernatural beings show themselves and prove their
powers and knowledge..
It never happens becasue the supernatural beings don't exist.
monkfish
You don't seem to understand
what 'supernatural' means.
Anyhow, what you are not getting is that
we can meaningfully talk about "something"
that is prior to existence.
Take a class in ontology, please.
--
monkfish
J666
>
> There's an easy way for supernaturalists to prove atheists wrong -
> simply have their supernatural beings show themselves and prove their
> powers and knowledge..
>
> It never happens becasue the supernatural beings don't exist.
If there is a God and that God did show him/herself and prove His/Her
existence and power, then there would be no reason for faith and basicially
God would be an omnipotent "dictator"
The believers would counter that God requires faith, then God could not prove
His/Her existences.
monkfish
Can you start a business without money?
Can you buy a car without money?
Can money buy you love?
Does money control your happiness?
Do you believe in money?
Can money prove its existence?
--
monkfish
J666
> Can money prove its existence?
Money is man-made so is God man made?
dzho
> On Mar 29, 8:09 am, monkfish <monkfish@nowhere> wrote:
>> J A wrote:
>>> On Mar 29, 4:03 am, "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
[...]
> There's an easy way for supernaturalists to prove atheists wrong -
> simply have their supernatural beings show themselves and prove their
> powers and knowledge..
>
> It never happens becasue the supernatural beings don't exist.
I could probably come up with lots of ways for you to prove you exist,
rather than you simply being a clever emacs program. If you choose not
to accommodate my desire for proof, does that mean you don't exist?
monkfish
Have you seen a bird
bribing its possible mate?
Some theologians think
God can only be understood
through imaginative construction.
Is your self-awareness man-made?
--
monkfish
J A
I know what it means. I also know that instead of having the character
to admit that your jesus god is phony, you try to play games with
words meanings.
'supernatural'
1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural
forces.
3. Of or relating to a deity.
4. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power;
miraculous.
5. Of or relating to the miraculous.
> Anyhow, what you are not getting is that
> we can meaningfully talk about "something"
> that is prior to existence.
> Take a class in ontology, please.
You should take a course in reality and logic.
>
> --
> monkfish- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
J A
That's really dumb.
It's easy to prove whether or not a particular human exists by the
traces he leaves - the police do it all the time, and often can
produce the person if neccesary.
Nobody can produce any of the gods people have claimed over the
centuries.
People over time have ascribed all sorts of things in the physical
world to various gods, like weather, disease, insanity, etc.
The physical effects of the "gods" always wind up being explainable
and managable by science.
If you think your gods are the explanation for what you see in the
world, then go live in a cave and eat wild food.
monkfish
So you think you understand reality and logic?
We can start there as well.
How do you know that reality exists?
--
monkfish
J A
If you can't even believe that you yourself exist, then why bother
worrying about whether mythic beings exist?
dzho
> On Mar 29, 9:01 am, dzho <d...@nospam.nett> wrote:
>> J A wrote:
>>> On Mar 29, 8:09 am, monkfish <monkfish@nowhere> wrote:
>>>> J A wrote:
>>>>> On Mar 29, 4:03 am, "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
>> [...]
>>
>>> There's an easy way for supernaturalists to prove atheists wrong -
>>> simply have their supernatural beings show themselves and prove their
>>> powers and knowledge..
>>> It never happens becasue the supernatural beings don't exist.
>> I could probably come up with lots of ways for you to prove you exist,
>> rather than you simply being a clever emacs program. If you choose not
>> to accommodate my desire for proof, does that mean you don't exist?
>
> That's really dumb.
>
> It's easy to prove whether or not a particular human exists by the
> traces he leaves - the police do it all the time, and often can
> produce the person if neccesary.
>
> Nobody can produce any of the gods people have claimed over the
> centuries.
I think you missed my point. Let me try to use smaller words so you
won't think I'm dumb.
If there are supernatural beings, why should they accommodate your
demands to prove their existence?
In other words, if you decree that supernatural beings have to show
themselves in order for them to exist, why would they be subject to your
decree? Suppose I decree that they should not show themselves? What's a
supernatural being to do, given that anyone can decree anything about
their existence?
In the simplest terms I can phrase it, you don't know if they exist or
not, you simply don't believe they do, and you mistake your disbelief as
some kind of proof.
J A
By the way, if you don't believe in "reality", then go out to a
highway and step out in front of the next "imaginary" big truck coming
along.
monkfish
If you cannot even prove that you exist,
what makes you think
you should be able to prove that God exists?
--
monkfish
monkfish
You are missing the point.
I'm not saying that reality does not exist.
I'm asking how you prove that reality exists.
As you question the existence of God,
I'm saying that:
if you prove that reality exists,
I will show you that God exists.
Is your grandfather alive?
Dead?
How do you prove that he exists?
How do you prove that you exist?
--
monkfish
J A
I'm here showing up the facile logic you try to employ in evading the
lack of proof for any gods - that's good evidence that I exist.
You're following a sophomoric line here, that impresses no one.
J A
No I'm not. I know what sophomorism when I see it.
> I'm not saying that reality does not exist.
> I'm asking how you prove that reality exists.
And I told you. Simply step in front of that truck and you will have
reality proved to you quickly.
> As you question the existence of God,
> I'm saying that:
> if you prove that reality exists,
> I will show you that God exists.
Bullshit.
Step in front of that truck while imagining that god will protect you
from any harm - you will know the difference between reality and
fantasy.
You think this sophomoric stuff you put out is clever?
>
> Is your grandfather alive?
> Dead?
> How do you prove that he exists?
> How do you prove that you exist?
>
> --
J A
It is you who is simple, little sophomore.
You don't know basic logic, idiot.
It is up to the person who says something exists, to prove it.
It's not up to everyone in the world to prove that an infinite number
of dumb propositions don't exist.
All you're doing is evading the real question.
People who claim a god exists should prove that the god exists before
anyone should accept that the god exists.
Otherwise, its just something going on in your head.
Do you think the stuff going on in a schizophrenic's mind is also real
and would require no proof to be real?
monkfish
So you think you know what you are.
Actually you can be whatever you wanna be.
But you cannot make God whatever you wanna make it.
Do you know what God is?
--
monkfish
I'll be removing sci.med.cardiology
from the header soon.
monkfish
People get emotional and become rude
when they feel they are losing.
How do you prove that something exists?
If you answer that question,
I will show you how you might not even exist.
monkfish
I guess you just cannot comprehend
what it means for God to be prior to existence.
I guess you believe in money.
What does it mean for money to exist?
J A
No you can't.
People with a leg missing can't make it grow back. People exist in
reality.
Try being invincible and test it by stepping in front of a truck
> But you cannot make God whatever you wanna make it.
Of course you can, people have been doing it ever since they started
inventing gods.
Zeus and Neptune are different than yahweh, etc.
> Do you know what God is?
It's a fantasy, until there is some supernatural being with great
powers and knowledge that shows up and proves his powers.
Schizophrenics have all sorts of ideations and people and monsters
inside their minds. Those are not real, any more than jesus or yahweh
or Zeus.
>
> --
> monkfish
>
> I'll be removing sci.med.cardiology
> from the header soon.- Hide quoted text -
J666
> I'll be removing sci.med.cardiology
> from the header soon.
I think some will agree with that.
Would recommend that you ignore the statements that you cannot hold
your own on SCM and that is why you are running away.
Sometimes getting "emotional and rude" can be an effective way of
countering an absurd response or endless absurd questions in place of
a response and trying to sound sophisticated and profound and
sometimes can be a sign of losing an argument.
It is usually obvious which it is.
J A
LOL.
More sophomorisms.
"Bullshit" is a very appropriate response to the stuff you put out.
If you don't think reality exists, then test it by stepping in front
of a truck. You won't try that becasue you know what will happen - IN
REALITY.
> How do you prove that something exists?
The scientific method - google it.
> If you answer that question,
> I will show you how you might not even exist.
If you think you don't exist, then step in front of a truck.
>
> --
> monkfish
>
> I'll be removing sci.med.cardiology
> from the header soon.- Hide quoted text -
monkfish
Do you know what money is?
Can you prove that money exists?
Do you know what self is?
Can you prove that self exists?
monkfish
If you are serious about the debate,
you can talk to me at alt.christnet.theology.
--
J A
This is a meaningless statement.
This thread was started on the topic of Chung raving to a very well
know supernatural being.
I don't think that supernatural being exists.
If you do, then prove it.
> I guess you believe in money.
> What does it mean for money to exist?
If you don't believe money exists, then how do you pay for an internet
acct., or a computer? If you don't use money, how do you get along
day to day?
monkfish
How do you prove the scientific method?
Does it even exist?
You might need God to prove its existence.
What is science?
Does it even exist?
How do we know it exists
without referring to nothingness?
J666
> If you are serious about the debate,
> you can talk to me at alt.christnet.theology.
It is interesting that you consider your endless pseudo-Socratic
questions to be a serious debate. Instead of endless sophomoric
questions, why not debate with your beliefs and any evidence you have
to back up those beliefs. I will let the reader decide his/her reason
for your typical response.
monkfish
Kindly tell me what money is
and how you can prove that money exists, please.
monkfish
Can you even prove to us that
your awareness exists?
If you do that, I will show you
how to prove that God exists.
J A
If you don't believe money exists how can you have a computer and an
internet acct?
Those things require money.
> Do you know what self is?
> Can you prove that self exists?
If you really think you exist only as a thought, then take your body
out to a highway and step in fron of a truck.
J A
You keep repeating the same sophomoric falacies.
If you don't believe any of the things around you exist, then just lay
down and stop eating and moving.
If you don't believe I exist, why are you posting to me?
> You might need God to prove its existence.
No, I don't need supernatural beings to prove that I've got you
hjooked on replying with sophomoric posts.
I KNOW that. ;-))
J A
Money is what you yourself use to buy your computer and pay for your
internet acct.
See how easy it was to defeat your pseudo intellectual prattle?
dzho
> On Mar 29, 9:59 am, dzho <d...@nospam.nett> wrote:
[...]
>>
>> If there are supernatural beings, why should they accommodate your
>> demands to prove their existence?
>>
>> In other words, if you decree that supernatural beings have to show
>> themselves in order for them to exist, why would they be subject to your
>> decree? Suppose I decree that they should not show themselves? What's a
>> supernatural being to do, given that anyone can decree anything about
>> their existence?
>>
>> In the simplest terms I can phrase it, you don't know if they exist or
>> not, you simply don't believe they do, and you mistake your disbelief as
>> some kind of proof.
>
> It is you who is simple, little sophomore.
So you do know if they exist or not? How?
> You don't know basic logic, idiot.
Basic logic would eliminate things like "I haven't seen it so it doesn't
exist".
> It is up to the person who says something exists, to prove it.
In some contexts yes. In the context of a discussion about supernatural
beings, no. Requiring empirical proof of non-empirical beings isn't
reasonable. You believe in them or you don't.
> It's not up to everyone in the world to prove that an infinite number
> of dumb propositions don't exist.
In a discussion about something that can't be proved empirically one way
or the other, nothing is incumbent on anyone to prove anything
empirically. It's not that kind of discussion.
> All you're doing is evading the real question.
>
> People who claim a god exists should prove that the god exists before
> anyone should accept that the god exists.
According to who? You? Why do you get to decide something like that? Why
would someone who believes in God have to comply with your wishes to do so?
>
> Otherwise, its just something going on in your head.
>
> Do you think the stuff going on in a schizophrenic's mind is also real
> and would require no proof to be real?
I didn't say anything was real.
monkfish
I use credit cards for that.
If you use cash, it does not say "money" on it;
it probably says "In God We Trust".
Can you see money?
If so, what do you actually see
when you think you see money?
If I make a hundred dollar bill
exactly as it is made by the government,
is it still money?
J A
And reply that shows just how facile your pseudo logic / philosophy
is.
> Can you see money?
> If so, what do you actually see
> when you think you see money?
> If I make a hundred dollar bill
> exactly as it is made by the government,
> is it still money?
No, it would be counterfeit, just like your facile "logic".
J A
> J A wrote:
> > On Mar 29, 9:59 am, dzho <d...@nospam.nett> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>
>
> >> If there are supernatural beings, why should they accommodate your
> >> demands to prove their existence?
>
> >> In other words, if you decree that supernatural beings have to show
> >> themselves in order for them to exist, why would they be subject to your
> >> decree? Suppose I decree that they should not show themselves? What's a
> >> supernatural being to do, given that anyone can decree anything about
> >> their existence?
>
> >> In the simplest terms I can phrase it, you don't know if they exist or
> >> not, you simply don't believe they do, and you mistake your disbelief as
> >> some kind of proof.
>
> > It is you who is simple, little sophomore.
>
> So you do know if they exist or not? How?
>
> > You don't know basic logic, idiot.
>
> Basic logic would eliminate things like "I haven't seen it so it doesn't
> exist".
A poor attempt at a strwman argument.
You lose.
>
> > It is up to the person who says something exists, to prove it.
>
> In some contexts yes.
No, in all contexts.
>In the context of a discussion about supernatural
> beings, no. Requiring empirical proof of non-empirical beings isn't
> reasonable. You believe in them or you don't.
You're confusing a "supernatural" with "non-empirical".
A supernatural being has powers and knowledge past what what humans
would consider natural. That doesn't imply that its existence couldn't
be proved.
A supernatural being could appear to people and simply prove its
existence any time it wanted, assuming its powerful enough.
Yahweh is said to be "all powerful", so he could do that, if he
existed.
<snip>
J666
(in message <EeOdndXZF-TqMHPa...@ptd.net>):
> I'll be removing sci.med.cardiology
> from the header soon.
When.
It is getting like the old Saturday Night Live catch phrase:
"Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead" that you'll " be removing
sci.med.cardiology from the header soon" is another.
I did notice that you did not pase that as a question but as a statement
J666
(in message <Id2dnYPw664hD3Pa...@ptd.net>):
> nothingness?
Ah, the nothingness from the great story and movie, the Never Ending Story.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
J666
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
monkfish
Show me money.
J666
dzho
> On Mar 29, 1:00 pm, dzho <d...@nospam.nett> wrote:
>> J A wrote:
>>> On Mar 29, 9:59 am, dzho <d...@nospam.nett> wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>>
>>
>>>> If there are supernatural beings, why should they accommodate your
>>>> demands to prove their existence?
>>>> In other words, if you decree that supernatural beings have to show
>>>> themselves in order for them to exist, why would they be subject to your
>>>> decree? Suppose I decree that they should not show themselves? What's a
>>>> supernatural being to do, given that anyone can decree anything about
>>>> their existence?
>>>> In the simplest terms I can phrase it, you don't know if they exist or
>>>> not, you simply don't believe they do, and you mistake your disbelief as
>>>> some kind of proof.
>>> It is you who is simple, little sophomore.
>> So you do know if they exist or not? How?
>>
>>> You don't know basic logic, idiot.
>> Basic logic would eliminate things like "I haven't seen it so it doesn't
>> exist".
>
> A poor attempt at a strwman argument.
>
> You lose.
You were complaining that people who believed in supernatural beings
couldn't produce them, and that their lack of doing so was because they
don't exist.
>>> It is up to the person who says something exists, to prove it.
>> In some contexts yes.
>
> No, in all contexts.
>
>> In the context of a discussion about supernatural
>> beings, no. Requiring empirical proof of non-empirical beings isn't
>> reasonable. You believe in them or you don't.
>
> You're confusing a "supernatural" with "non-empirical".
>
> A supernatural being has powers and knowledge past what what humans
> would consider natural. That doesn't imply that its existence couldn't
> be proved.
Please state the rules for proving the existence of a supernatural being.
> A supernatural being could appear to people and simply prove its
> existence any time it wanted, assuming its powerful enough.
What if it doesn't want to, or isn't powerful enough?
> Yahweh is said to be "all powerful", so he could do that, if he
> existed.
If He wanted.
> <snip>
Indeed.
J A
For a quarter, will you disappear?
monkfish
If you don't know how to prove
that money exists,
what makes you think
you can prove that God exists?
J A
Wrong.
I wasn't complaining - I was pointing out the obvious.
>
> >>> It is up to the person who says something exists, to prove it.
> >> In some contexts yes.
>
> > No, in all contexts.
>
> >> In the context of a discussion about supernatural
> >> beings, no. Requiring empirical proof of non-empirical beings isn't
> >> reasonable. You believe in them or you don't.
>
> > You're confusing a "supernatural" with "non-empirical".
>
> > A supernatural being has powers and knowledge past what what humans
> > would consider natural. That doesn't imply that its existence couldn't
> > be proved.
>
> Please state the rules for proving the existence of a supernatural being.
This is just stupid.
Can't you figure out for yourself what would convincing to the world
that some all powerful all knowing superantural could perform ?
> > A supernatural being could appear to people and simply prove its
> > existence any time it wanted, assuming its powerful enough.
>
> What if it doesn't want to,
Then it must not care whether people believe it exists.
>or isn't powerful enough?
Do you even know what the discussion is about?
<snip>
dzho
> On Mar 29, 5:45 pm, dzho <d...@nospam.nett> wrote:
[...]
>> Please state the rules for proving the existence of a supernatural being.
>
> This is just stupid.
>
> Can't you figure out for yourself what would convincing to the world
> that some all powerful all knowing superantural could perform ?
Sure, but I'm not the one claiming they don't exist because they don't
do something, you are. When asked for specifics you start throwing dust
in the air.
>>> A supernatural being could appear to people and simply prove its
>>> existence any time it wanted, assuming its powerful enough.
>> What if it doesn't want to,
>
> Then it must not care whether people believe it exists.
That's the only option?
>> or isn't powerful enough?
>
> Do you even know what the discussion is about?
>
> <snip>
I'm fairly sure I do.
This group has really gone into the weeds. You used to be able to have a
sensible discussion here, guess I've been gone too long.
Go ahead and claim victory, I have better things to do.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>
> > http://ABChung.LiveJournal.com/103275.html
>
> The whole thing is a myth with many obvious factual errors.
Not for the discerning.
Thus, you remain
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Crazysatan
who is still
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Doomedsatan
forevermore
http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/Alpha_Omega
<><
May dear neighbors, friends, and brethren have a blessedly wonderful
2008th year since the birth of our LORD Jesus Christ as the Son of
Man ...
... by being hungrier:
http://TruthRUS.org/KnowingGOD
Hunger is wonderful:
It's how we know what GOD wants, which is what is good.
Yes, hunger is our knowledge of good versus evil that Adam and Eve
paid for with their and our immortal lives.
Those who suffer from the powerful delusion predicted by the prophecy
of 2 Thessalonians 2:9-11 would deny this and perish ( gone !!! )
forever ...
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts/CrazyOne
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts/CrazyTwo
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts/CrazyThree
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts/CrazyFour
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts/Bob
... gone:
http://YouTube.com/watch?v=Qb6d_z5C35E
Such will be the demise of all those who refuse to know **and** love
the truth, Who is LORD Jesus Christ:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Love/TheTruth
Be hungry... be healthy... be hungrier... be blessed:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/BeBlessed
"Blessed are you who hunger NOW...
... for you will be satisfied." -- LORD Jesus Christ (Luke 6:21)
Amen.
http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/Luke6_21
A simple parable for the wise and discerning:
Be hungry... be healthy... be hungrier... be healthier:
http://TheWellnessFoundation.com/BeHealthier
Prayerfully in the infinite power and might of the Holy Spirit,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Lawful steward of http://EmoryCardiology.com
A latter-day disciple of the KING of kings and LORD of lords.
http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/DiscipleNow
J A
> J A wrote:
> > On Mar 29, 5:45 pm, dzho <d...@nospam.nett> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> Please state the rules for proving the existence of a supernatural being.
>
> > This is just stupid.
>
> > Can't you figure out for yourself what would convincing to the world
> > that some all powerful all knowing superantural could perform ?
>
> Sure, but I'm not the one claiming they don't exist because they don't
> do something, you are. When asked for specifics you start throwing dust
> in the air.
You're arguing for belief in things for which there is no evidence.
That is stupid.
The thread concerns supernatural beings that chung posts about.
A great deal of marketing literature exists about these beings, but
none of it is credible or could be considered evidence for their
existence.
I can write books about some being that I conjure up in my
imagination, and if those books are read by people a few thousand
years from now, they will not constitute proof or even evidence for
its existence.
J A
<heartdo...@emorycardiology.com> wrote:
> http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/_conjured up in chung's "mind"
J A
> monkfish wrote:
> > J A wrote:
> >> <heartdo...@emorycardiology.com> wrote:
> >>>http://ABChung.LiveJournal.com/103275.html
>
> >>> May dear neighbors, friends, and brethren have a blessedly wonderful
>
> >> The whole thing is a myth with many obvious factual errors. The
> >> gospels of the New Testament contradict each other on important
> >> points.
>
> >> These books were written decades after the crucifixion by unknown
> >> authors. Even the dating of the birth of Jesus in the gospels is
> >> unclear and contains misstatements of fact.
>
> >> The Gospel according to Luke says that Jesus was born in the year when
> >> Caesar Augustus ordered a census for the purpose of taxation and that
> >> this happened at a time when Herod reigned in Judea and when Quirinius
> >> was governor of Syria.
>
> >> The problem is that Herod died four years before Christ and that
> >> during his time of ruling, the governor of Syria was not Quirinius .
>
> >> The only historical mention of a census ordered by Augustus was by the
> >> Jewish historian Josephus, but that happened six years after Jesus was
> >> supposed to have been born, and did not require people to return to
> >> their places of birth.
>
> >> Probably, the reason for all this confusion stems from the fact that
> >> the Old Testament prediction for Messiah has him coming from
> >> Bethlehem. Big problem -- Jesus's parents were apparently from the
> >> town of Nazareth and if they had a child he probably would have been
> >> delivered there.
>
>
> > people turned certain facts into a myth
> > by imposing their misunderstandings on them.
>
> > Just think about it a little.
> > At that time, most people believed that
> > humans can turn into gods,
> > augurs can predict the future, and
> > magicians can turn water into wine.
>
> > Still they knew that
> > a regular person cannot be born from a virgin,
> > a regular person cannot raise the dead, and
> > a regular person cannot come back to life after death.
>
> > So, something wonderful must have happened
> > for them to feel the need to invent a myth.
> > There was a special person, maybe?
>
> "There was a special person, maybe?"
Yes, but he couldn't make elephants disappear. ;-))
J A
<heartdo...@emorycardiology.com> wrote:
> satan via a sockpuppet (corporeal demon) hissed:
>
> > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>
> > >http://ABChung.LiveJournal.com/103275.html
>
> > The whole thing is a myth with many obvious factual errors.
>
> Not for the discerning.
Discerning people know the bible is faulty and proof of nothing.
Professor Bart D. Ehrman is one such scholar with many discerning
books on how faulty it is.
You, Andrew, are a mental case who thinks he was murdered by the
police in 1997, and then was ressurected.
You should stop posting your nonsnese and spend your time getting
youre mental health back.
J A
> J666 wrote:
> > On Mar 29, 1:58 pm, monkfish <monkfish
>
> >> If you are serious about the debate,
> >> you can talk to me at alt.christnet.theology.
>
> > It is interesting that you consider your endless pseudo-Socratic
> > questions to be a serious debate. Instead of endless sophomoric
> > questions, why not debate with your beliefs and any evidence you have
> > to back up those beliefs. I will let the reader decide his/her reason
> > for your typical response.
>
> Can you even prove to us that
> your awareness exists?
Yes, your replies are evidence.
J666
> Yes, your replies are evidence.
But, some people talk to God and the Holy Spirit and some even claim that God
and the Holy Spirit talk to them, so perhaps they are talking to you in the
same way, except you are Satanesque.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
is still
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Doomedsatan
forevermore:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/Alpha_Omega
<><
May dear neighbors, friends, and brethren have a blessedly wonderful
J A
Perhaps.
But I repeatedly asked Mr MonkeyCarp to walk out in front of a truck
if he REALLY disbelieved his own senses that he was an alive being.
He kept posting.
Ergo: his belief that he's not actually a brain in a nutritive bath,
just imaging all this, proves that we are all actually doing this, or
something.
J A
<heartdo...@emorycardiology.com> wrote:
> http://HeartMDPhD.com/Crazysatan
>
> is still
>
> http://HeartMDPhD.com/Doomedsatan
You only have on oar in the water. Stop rowing.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
J666
> You only have on oar in the water. Stop rowing.
If you only have one oar and keep rowing with the oar on only one side, you
go around in circles and that may explain why those who use the Bible to
prove the Bible, are using circular reasoning.
J666
>
> Perhaps.
>
> But I repeatedly asked Mr MonkeyCarp to walk out in front of a truck
> if he REALLY disbelieved his own senses that he was an alive being.
>
> He kept posting.
>
> Ergo: his belief that he's not actually a brain in a nutritive bath,
> just imaging all this, proves that we are all actually doing this, or
> something.
That seems logical
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
monkfish
You seem to be obsessed with existence.
Do ideas exist?
How do you prove their existence?
Does love exist?
How do you prove its existence?
--
monkfish
J A
> J A wrote:
> > On Mar 29, 9:00 pm, "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
> > <heartdo...@emorycardiology.com> wrote:
>
>
> > The thread concerns supernatural beings that chung posts about.
>
> > A great deal of marketing literature exists about these beings, but
> > none of it is credible or could be considered evidence for their
> > existence.
>
> > I can write books about some being that I conjure up in my
> > imagination, and if those books are read by people a few thousand
> > years from now, they will not constitute proof or even evidence for
> > its existence.
>
> You seem to be obsessed with existence.
So do you.
You still haven't walked out in front of that truck.
> Do ideas exist?
> How do you prove their existence?
You seem to be obsessed with the idea of questioning the existence of
ideas.
How do you know that you are not just a figment of my imagination?
My idea is that you were very impressed with a sophomore level course
in philosophy.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
J666
(in message <3rydnVFqtpgdZXLa...@ptd.net>):
> You seem to be obsessed with existence.
>
> Do ideas exist?
> How do you prove their existence?
>
> Does love exist?
> How do you prove its existence?
>
You seemed obsessed with sophomoric pseudo-Socratic questions - have you
notice very few give you an answer.
J666
>> You seem to be obsessed with existence.
>
> So do you.
>
> You still haven't walked out in front of that truck.
>
>> Do ideas exist?
>> How do you prove their existence?
>
> You seem to be obsessed with the idea of questioning the existence of
> ideas.
>
> How do you know that you are not just a figment of my imagination?
>
> My idea is that you were very impressed with a sophomore level course
> in philosophy.
I do not think this is the type of response the poster wants - he said no one
cares about what I say, and I think the poster sort of expects you to care
what he says like a student sitting on the floor at his knees eagerly wanting
to learn and not responding in a derogatory manner.
I wonder if the Holy Spirit will convict you for this offensive response.
I've sometimes wondered if those who only can respond with questions really
have no answers and are trying to fool people into thinking how wise they
are. Sort of the Suckratic method.
J A
<heartdo...@emorycardiology.com> wrote:
> http://HeartMDPhD.com/ChungDemon
Truly, within the xian pygmy tribe, thou art a dwarf...
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
is still
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Doomedsatan
forevermore
http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/Alpha_Omega
<><
Be hungry... be healthy... be hungrier... be blessed:
J A
> On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 15:43:18 -0500, J A
>
>
>
>
>
> >> You seem to be obsessed with existence.
>
> > So do you.
>
> > You still haven't walked out in front of that truck.
>
> >> Do ideas exist?
> >> How do you prove their existence?
>
> > You seem to be obsessed with the idea of questioning the existence of
> > ideas.
>
> > How do you know that you are not just a figment of my imagination?
>
> > My idea is that you were very impressed with a sophomore level course
> > in philosophy.
>
> I do not think this is the type of response the poster wants - he said no one
> cares about what I say, and I think the poster sort of expects you to care
> what he says like a student sitting on the floor at his knees eagerly wanting
> to learn and not responding in a derogatory manner.
Oh yeh, he thinks his drivel is real deep philosophical questioning.
> I wonder if the Holy Spirit will convict you for this offensive response.
Yes, the ChungDemon chimed right in.
He thinks "how do you know you exist?" is "real heavy, dude". LOL
It's a window into his interactions with the "holey spirit".
<chuckle>
The little rice burner should be shipped back to Mongolia, and have
his goat herding pay docked for his wasted educational costs.
> I've sometimes wondered if those who only can respond with questions really
> have no answers and are trying to fool people into thinking how wise they
> are. Sort of the Suckratic method.
Or the "sophocratic" method.
monkfish
You are too self-centered to realize
that I'm mostly asking myself
as I don't expect many
intelligent answers from others.
Kindly note that I have been removing SMC
from most of my replies.
If you hate to let others have the last word,
you need to subscribe to other newsgroups
you are crossposting to.
--
monkfish
J A
<heartdo...@emorycardiology.com> wrote:
> http://HeartMDPhD.com/Flailingsatan
>
> is still
>
> http://HeartMDPhD.com/Doomedsatan
>
> forevermore
>
> http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/Alpha_Omega
Just a thought, Andrew, you DO insist that the "holey spirit" wears
protection when he "visits", right?
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
is still
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Doomedsatan
forevermore
http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/Alpha_Omega
<><
Be hungry... be healthy... be hungrier... be blessed:
J666
(in message
<3d0c922b-be00-47bf...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>):
> Or the "sophocratic" method
Or the Idiotocratic method
Some live in the Kingdom of Idiotcracy where the idiots can speak freely
without any "rhyme or reason."
I already know some who are Bondservants, Swordbearers, Brethren and
Idiotocratic self-style professors of the King of that Kingdom
J A
When the "holey spirit" "visits" Andrew, does he bring his own K-Y?
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
J666
(in message <CsedncDad8bikW3a...@ptd.net>):
> You are too self-centered to realize
> that I'm mostly asking myself
> as I don't expect many
> intelligent answers from others.
>
> Kindly note that I have been removing SMC
> from most of my replies.
> If you hate to let others have the last word,
> you need to subscribe to other newsgroups
> you are crossposting to.
Hmmm ...
If you are asking yourself, why do you need to post it here.
Are you the ONLY one who is intelligent as you "don't expect many intelligent
answers from others" It could also be that few care what you say - you might
ask yourself that.
This came to SMC because it was in the headers and put there by you - perhaps
you need to ask yourself why you do that since you do not want it.
You said you were not subscribed to SMC, but yet post here - perhaps you need
to ask yourself why you are asking others to do what you will not do.
Again - please include SMC in your replies if not set up by the poster for
that - the poster may not want "non-amen" voices to be heard.
J666
> Just a thought, Andrew, you DO insist that the "holey spirit" wears
> protection when he "visits", right?
Do people who believe in a soul have a shoe or fish fetish?
Asking myself a question, since that seems to be happening now:
For dinner do I want a nice grilled fillet of sole of .....
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
JM
JM
The poster formerly known as Colleyville Alan
news:3330602b-030d-4b33...@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> http://HeartMDPhD.com/Flounderingsatan
The above link gives us this gem of knowledge:
>> Its your obligation to provide proof that "God" exists. You
> >never have..not a shred of eveidence.
> >And I suspect you never will.
>
>Seems they want to trust but not verify, but that is what faith is -
>believing in something you cannot verify.
Thanks. If you could convince the rest of the theists who post here that
such is indeed the case, the world would be a better place. Or at least
it's IQ would be raised by several points.
>Therefore asking a person of faith to provide proof, "does not compute" to
>them.
Again, you have hit the nail on the head and have shown quite clearly what
is wrong with the theists.
But going back to your earlier point, if you believe without evidence, then
why not pick something else to believe? Like, say, watching Internet porn
and eating gluttonously is a good thing. I mean, if you believe is
something without evidence, then one thing is as good as another, cosmically
speaking and you might as well believe that something fun is better than
something not fun, like praying on your knees would be less fun than having
Monica Lewinsky on her knees.
J666
Alan wrote
(in message <47f034b7$0$16691$4c36...@roadrunner.com>):
> eating gluttonously is a good thing.
The Bible for this:
The Decadent Cookbook: Recipes of Obsession and Excess by Medlar Lucan and
Durian Gray
Book Description
The spirits of Caligula and the Marquis de Sade haunt this viciously witty
send-up of "la grande bouffe." The morbid minded and the terminally
degenerate will especially enjoy such scandalous chapters as "I Can Recommend
the Poodle" and "Blood, the Vital Ingredient." The decadent gourmand can't
help but go wrong with this celebrated collection of recipes, an ideal gift
for the terminally degenerate.
<
http://www.amazon.com/Decadent-Cookbook-Recipes-Obsession-
Excess/dp/1568582692>
The poster formerly known as Colleyville Alan
"JM" <JM200...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f20aca54-4c14-48de...@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> Got observations for abiogenesis?
>
> JM
You really are a moron. Chung is one of you.
The poster formerly known as Colleyville Alan
"J666" <jea...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.C415A1DD...@news-server.rgv.rr.com...
> On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 19:47:48 -0500, The poster formerly known as
> Colleyville
> Alan wrote
> (in message <47f034b7$0$16691$4c36...@roadrunner.com>):
>
>> eating gluttonously is a good thing.
>
> The Bible for this:
>
> The Decadent Cookbook: Recipes of Obsession and Excess by Medlar Lucan and
> Durian Gray
and who could disagree with the Bible?
>
> Book Description
> The spirits of Caligula and the Marquis de Sade haunt this viciously witty
> send-up of "la grande bouffe."
Marquis de Sade? You mean I can eat like a pig and spank a pretty girl?
That's what I call a cookbook!
>The morbid minded and the terminally
> degenerate will especially enjoy such scandalous chapters as "I Can
> Recommend
> the Poodle" and "Blood, the Vital Ingredient." The decadent gourmand can't
> help but go wrong with this celebrated collection of recipes, an ideal
> gift
> for the terminally degenerate.
>
> <
> http://www.amazon.com/Decadent-Cookbook-Recipes-Obsession-
> Excess/dp/1568582692>
Yummy, yummy, yummy I've got dogs in my tummy...
J666
Alan
> Marquis de Sade? You mean I can eat like a pig and spank a pretty girl?
> That's what I call a cookbook!
If it is in the Good Book, it is good and what God wants so go ahead and do
it.
Just remember the only difference between Good and God is one extra "o" and
Cook and BooK have two "o's"
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
>
> Got observations for abiogenesis?
No.
Instead, what we have witnessed is only biogenesis (the process of
lifeforms producing other lifeforms).
Therefore, scientifically, there is every reason to conclude that all
the life we have seen and continue to see around us serve as proof of
our living GOD, Who is the Alpha and the Omega:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/Alpha_Omega
"But in the account of the bush, even Moses showed that the dead rise,
for he calls the LORD 'the GOD of Abraham, and the GOD of Isaac, and
the GOD of Jacob.' HE is not the GOD of the dead, but of the living,
for to HIM all are alive." -- LORD Jesus Christ (Luke 20:37-39)
Amen.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>Got observations for abiogenesis?
Yes, lots.
>
>JM
Got observations for your gods?
Got observations for your intelligence?
No, because neither exist.
McClueless Video Challenge - Month 3 and still counting.
McPiltdown Deathmarch - Month 21 and still 1,997,000 school textbooks
to account for.
Censorship by talk.origins and/or Google - several months after your
first claims and still not one shred of evidence.
We are ALL waiting for you McClueless. These matters are NOT going to
go away.
--
Bob.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
... of lies.
Ye remain the old liar who is the source of all lies are described in
the Bible:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Liarsatan
who remain
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Doomedsatan
forevermore
http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/Alpha_Omega
May we, who are Jesus' disciples, continue to rebuke you at each GOD-
given opportunity as GOD desires:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts/Rebukesatan
<><
May dear neighbors, friends, and brethren have a blessedly wonderful
2008th year since the birth of our LORD Jesus Christ as the Son of
Man ...
... by being hungrier:
http://TruthRUS.org/KnowingGOD
Hunger is wonderful:
It's how we know what GOD wants, which is what is good.
Yes, hunger is our knowledge of good versus evil that Adam and Eve
paid for with their and our immortal lives.
Those who suffer from the powerful delusion predicted by the prophecy
of 2 Thessalonians 2:9-11 would deny this and perish ( gone !!! )
forever ...
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts/CrazyOne
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts/CrazyTwo
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts/CrazyThree
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts/CrazyFour
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts/Bob
... gone:
http://YouTube.com/watch?v=Qb6d_z5C35E
Such will be the demise of all those who refuse to know **and** love
the truth, Who is LORD Jesus Christ:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Love/TheTruth
Be hungry... be healthy... be hungrier... be blessed:
Robert Weldon
> friend JM wrote:
>>
>> Got observations for abiogenesis?
>
> No.
>
> Instead, what we have witnessed is only biogenesis (the process of
> lifeforms producing other lifeforms).
>
> Therefore, scientifically, there is every reason to conclude that all
> the life we have seen and continue to see around us serve as proof of
> our living GOD, Who is the Alpha and the Omega:
It is evident from the geological record that, originally, there was no life
on Earth, now there is. Therefore, scientifically, abiogenesis had to have
happened at one point, otherwise you wouldn't be here posting your crap.
-rest of chungspew snipped.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> > friend JM wrote:
> >>
> >> Got observations for abiogenesis?
> >
> > No.
> >
> > Instead, what we have witnessed is only biogenesis (the process of
> > lifeforms producing other lifeforms).
> >
> > Therefore, scientifically, there is every reason to conclude that all
> > the life we have seen and continue to see around us serve as proof of
> > our living GOD, Who is the Alpha and the Omega:
>
>
> It is evident from the geological record that, originally, there was no life
> on Earth, now there is.
The origins of life here on Earth is LORD Almighty GOD, Who is living.
"But in the account of the bush, even Moses showed that the dead rise,
for he calls the LORD 'the GOD of Abraham, and the GOD of Isaac, and
the GOD of Jacob.' HE is not the GOD of the dead, but of the living,
for to HIM all are alive." -- LORD Jesus Christ (Luke 20:37-39)
Amen.
Therefore, scientifically and more importantly truthfully, there has
only been biogenesis from the beginning.
Truth is simple...
... and invincible,
Laus Deo ! ! !
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Laus Deo
May we, who are Jesus' disciples, continue to pray for your perishing
soul:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts/PrayForRobert
Mark K. Bilbo
f20aca54-4c14-48de...@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com, JM
<JM200...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Got observations for abiogenesis?
First, drag your "god" thing over here so we can look at it...
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"How come God gets credit whenever something good happens? Where was he
when her heart stopped?"
- Dr. House
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Smiler
So do look, took, hook, nook, rook & Kook!
Smiler,
The godless one
a.a.# 2279