Greeting RandyF on 05/20/16 ...

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD

unread,

May 20, 2016, 12:07:42 PM5/20/16

to

Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.

Report not abuse

RandyF wrote:
>bob officer wrote:
>> No the disease is never reverse, because either the cells that produce
>> insulin are reduced in number, or the bodies ability to respond on a
>> cellular level to changes in BGL and/or insulin has been effected by
>> progress of the disease.
>
> But the responders in the paper under discussion Did *reverse* 1st
> phase pancreatic response:
> From the paper:
> *************
> "Recovery of acute insulin secretory capacity to nondiabetic
> levels [20; 21] was seen in responders and not in non-responders"
> ************

Source:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.support.diabetes/KLXIdOuhRmM/46_0XZ8XAQAJ

> That's* huge*. And to my mind - is something more than just *control*.

Correct.

It is remission/reversal/cure :-)

I am wonderfully hungry and hope you, Randy, also have a healthy
appetite too.

So how are you ?

... because we mindfully choose to openly care with our heart,

HeartDoc Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Emory's IMVC.org cardiologist (GA Lic#040347)
and author of the 2PD-OMER Approach:
http://JiL4ever.net/Luke2442
which is the absolutely only **healthy** cure for type-2 diabetes

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD

unread,

May 21, 2016, 5:12:47 AM5/21/16

to

Cure-

unread,

May 21, 2016, 12:20:31 PM5/21/16

to

"It is remission/reversal/cure :-)"

What did the glucose challenge test results show? That is the gold
standarrd for diabetic status. If the usual 50 or more percent of beta
cells are missing at diagnosis, that test will confirm diabetic status.

No "cure" will have been demonstrated because those cells are gone and
will never be replaced to any degree that matters..
Often people who use glp-1 mimic type drugs will have all the verbs above.
The "cure" applies to them also. The glucose test mentioned have been done
with them. No surprise that diabetic status is confirmed.

Also the list of verbs needs to be qualified as to a1c testing. An
non-normal number is often used to evoke the list responses. The ada 7 as
a threshold has been used when a non-diabetic usually has a number in the
low 5 to high 4 range. That range must proceed any such claims.

Use of the glp-1 mimics ofoten result in a number in the 5 to 6 range.

The latter led research to look at post glp-1 numbers, they are greatly
elevated.

The post surgery results happen within days far short of the time weight
loss and/olr vat change would have on diabetic symptoms.

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD

unread,

May 21, 2016, 7:03:43 PM5/21/16

to

Someone eternally cursed and tormented wrote:
> RandyF wrote:
>
>>>> CONCLUSIONS: A robust and sustainable weight loss program
>>>> achieved continuing remission of diabetes for at least 6 months
>>>> in the 40% who responded to a VLCD by achieving fasting plasma
>>>> glucose of <7 mmol/L. T2DM is a potentially reversible
>>>> condition.

Source:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.med.cardiology/B-dJ_iWGRk8/3rFYbfd6AwAJ

>>> The study had 30 people? And had only less than half classed as
>>> responders to the treatment.
>>
>> 50% cure rate is pretty impressive.
>
> The small number of participants in this study (30) doesn't inspire
> confidence in the results.

The purpose of a larger number (N) of partipants would be to ensure
that a study is adequately powered to detect a small effect.

The "small number" excuse to reject the results of a study would be
justified if there were **no** findings with the rationale being that
the study was underpowered to detect small effects and consequently
missed them.

Such an excuse is not applicable here since the "50% cure rate" is a
very large effect.

Clearly you have no comprehension of statistics. Such cognitive
deficits are consistent with your being more cursed (Jeremiah 17:5) by
GOD.

May GOD continue to curse and torment you, who are cursed (Jeremiah
17:5), more than ever, in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Amen.

Someone eternally cursed and tormented wrote:

> I forgive you.

Exposing you is not sin but rather it's keeping the LORD's commandment
(Matthew 5:16)

Many thanks, much praise, and all the glory to GOD for His compelling
you to remind us that we who are His http://WDJW.net/Redeemed have
already been http://WDJW.net/Forgiven by Him as evident by our being
new creatures in Christ (2 Corinthians 5:17) publicly saying "Jesus is
LORD" with our mouth (Romans 10:9) unto salvation (Romans 10:10) for
all to witness at Jesus' http://WDJW.net web site :-)

Laus Deo !!!

Source:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.med.cardiology/1psFMsQWkAw/0V1sS3C-QZ8J

Someone eternally cursed and tormented wrote:

> "Finally, all of you be of one mind, having compassion for one another;
> love as brothers, be tenderhearted, be courteous." 1 Peter 3:8

Yes, this is directed towards those of us, who, unlike you who are
eternally condemned, have been http://WDJW.net/Redeemed as evident by
our publicly saying "Jesus is LORD" with our mouth (Romans 10:9) unto
salvation (Romans 10:10) for all to witness at our LORD's
http://WDJW.net/ web site and so we have compassion towards each other
instead of towards those like you who are being forever tormented by
the LORD our GOD, Who hates you just as He hates Esau (Malachi 1:2-3)
for his lying that hunger is starvation (Genesis 25:32).

> May God bless and protect and provide peace at last.

Many thanks, much praise, and all the glory to GOD for His compelling
you to unwittingly reveal that not only do you not know how to pray to
Him, you also do not have either His blessing or His protection or His
peace which is consistent with your being forever tormented by Him.

May GOD continue to openly torment you, who are eternally condemned
and accursed (Jeremiah 17:5), more than ever thereby ever comforting
those of us who are His http://WDJW.net/Redeemed in the name of Jesus
Christ of Nazareth. Amen.

Source:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.med.cardiology/l962_mp1wzo/b9OPa1Mbmx4J

aSomeone eternally cursed and tormented wrote:

> I'm sorry ...

Those who say/write that they are sorry unwittingly reveal that they
are indeed accursed for those of us who are http://WDJW.net/Forgiven
always say/write with all due (Romans 13:8) love (1 Peter 3:8) that we
repent.

Many thanks, much praise, and all the glory to GOD for His compelling
you to unwittingly prove yet again that you are fovever accursed.

Source:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.med.cardiology/Sz4t6AlA3Eo/RiUDbW9AwD4J

Someone eternally cursed and tormented wrote:
>
> not what goes into the mouth defiles a man, but what comes out of the
> mouth, this defiles a man. Matt. 15:11

Source:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.med.cardiology/CZ8vV8ygnZw/xXiBrV7oVgwJ

Some additional examples:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.med.cardiology/VUmQFOoArtw/TrTeRjdCcgAJ

and

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.med.cardiology/ize6zJm-cYE/BimXAx4trOcJ

Indeed, if what comes "out of the mouth" (Matthew 15:11) is either not
the phrase "wonderfully hungry" or doesn't cause (Deuteronomy 8:3)
others to be http://WDJW.net/WonderfullyHungrier now (Luke 6:21a) then
they are words that defile and prove that the source is like you who
are accursed like satan who is not hungry as evident by his eating
dust (Genesis 3:14) instead of real food.

Many thanks, much praise, and all glory to GOD for His compelling you
to unwittingly continue to prove that you are eternally condemned and
always accursed.

Source:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.med.cardiology/bncjgZjc2q4/Km9VWrPGh68J

Someone eternally cursed and tormented wrote:

> Markea Berry ...

Source:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.med.cardiology/XLpEpoxeecU/mOMtz7yzcMQJ

Some additional examples:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.med.cardiology/3N6bKuVT9Og/_B_GuBjcXMgJ

and

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.med.cardiology/tnSQcYqVu5s/kQ2kdFSOxmAJ

Many thanks, much praise, and all the glory to GOD for His compelling
you to unwittingly allow us to know that Markea's
http://WDJW.net/Ghost is haunting you by cutting down members of your
household one by one in answer to our prayers to the LORD our GOD, in
the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth:

http://bit.ly/13G1gKE

Laus Deo !!!

http://WDJW.net/LausDeo

Someone eternally cursed and tormented wrote:
>
> "Bariatric surgeons have in the peer-reviewed medical literature documented
> cases of type-2 diabetes being cured,"

Source:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.med.cardiology/B-dJ_iWGRk8/1fQmfxxrAQAJ

> False, they only go as far as saying "reverse" or some similar term.

"Reverse" is a similar term to cure in that they are interchangeable
(i.e. synonymous):

To reverse type-1 diabetes would be to cure it.

To reverse Multiple Sclerosis would be to cure it.

To reverse Parkinson's disease would be to cure it.

CHECKMATE :-)

I give all the glory ( http://bit.ly/Psalm112_1 ) to GOD for His
compelling you to unwittingly CHECKMATE yourself here. The latter
self-defeat is consistent with your being more cursed (Jeremiah 17:5)
by the LORD our Mighty (Isaiah 9:6) GOD.

May GOD continue to curse you, who are eternally condemned and cursed,
more than ever, in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth.

Amen.

HeartDoc Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Emory's IMVC.org cardiologist (GA Lic#040347)
and author of the 2PD-OMER Approach:

http://WDJW.net/Luke2442
which is the absolutely only **healthy** cure for acquired disease

ADA-

unread,

May 21, 2016, 7:58:50 PM5/21/16

to

>>>>> CONCLUSIONS: A robust and sustainable weight loss program
>>>>> achieved continuing remission of diabetes for at least 6 months
>>>>> in the 40% who responded to a VLCD by achieving fasting plasma
>>>>> glucose of <7 mmol/L. T2DM is a potentially reversible
>>>>> condition.

An a1c of < 7 is not what one would find in a "cure". The only relevant
benchmark would be the 4.6 to 5 or so of the non-diabetic.

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD

unread,

May 21, 2016, 8:25:41 PM5/21/16

to

Someone eternally condemned and tormented wrote:
> RandyF wrote:
>

>>>> CONCLUSIONS: A robust and sustainable weight loss program
>>>> achieved continuing remission of diabetes for at least 6 months
>>>> in the 40% who responded to a VLCD by achieving fasting plasma
>>>> glucose of <7 mmol/L. T2DM is a potentially reversible
>>>> condition.

Source:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.med.cardiology/B-dJ_iWGRk8/3rFYbfd6AwAJ

> An a1c of < 7 is not what one would find in a "cure". The only relevant
> benchmark would be the 4.6 to 5 or so of the non-diabetic.

All the glory ( http://bit.ly/Psalm112_1 ) to GOD for His compelling
you to unwittingly display your ignorance about the units of measure
for HgbA1c **not** being in mmol/L. Such ignorance is consistent with

your being more cursed (Jeremiah 17:5) by GOD.

May GOD continue to curse and torment you, who are cursed (Jeremiah
17:5), more than ever, in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Amen.

Someone eternally cursed and tormented wrote:

> RandyF wrote:
>
>>>> CONCLUSIONS: A robust and sustainable weight loss program
>>>> achieved continuing remission of diabetes for at least 6 months
>>>> in the 40% who responded to a VLCD by achieving fasting plasma
>>>> glucose of <7 mmol/L. T2DM is a potentially reversible
>>>> condition.

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD

unread,

May 22, 2016, 1:03:15 AM5/22/16

to

Rod

unread,

May 22, 2016, 5:28:37 PM5/22/16

to

Not so according to the American Diabetes Association
who says that any eAG below 154(7.0) means the diabetes has gone into
remission. Mine is eAG is 134(6.3).

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD

unread,

May 22, 2016, 8:17:10 PM5/22/16

to

Rod wrote in part:

> ... according to the American Diabetes Association

> who says that any eAG below 154(7.0) means the diabetes has gone into
> remission. Mine is eAG is 134(6.3).

Source:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.med.cardiology/vnFABJwOeIY/cOXahgZSAgAJ

I am wonderfully hungry and hope you, Rod, also have a healthy
appetite too :-)

So how are you ?

... because we mindfully choose to openly care with our heart,

HeartDoc Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Emory's IMVC.org cardiologist (GA Lic#040347)
and author of the 2PD-OMER Approach:

http://JiL4ever.net/Luke2442
which is the absolutely only **healthy** cure for type-2 diabetes

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD

unread,

May 23, 2016, 4:49:11 AM5/23/16

to

ADA--

unread,

May 23, 2016, 11:11:38 AM5/23/16

to

"Cure" and remission are quite different. The 7 figure in the "conclusion"
is the ada's number. It is also the numbner used in recent posts about a
"cure".

The only rational benchmark for same is the numbers of a non-diabetic be
it the a1c or glucose challenge or similar test.

Rod

unread,

May 23, 2016, 11:27:47 AM5/23/16

to

On 5/23/2016 9:59 AM, ADA*--* wrote:
>>>>>>>> CONCLUSIONS: A robust and sustainable weight loss program
>>>>>>>> achieved continuing remission of diabetes for at least 6 months
>>>>>>>> in the 40% who responded to a VLCD by achieving fasting plasma
>>>>>>>> glucose of <7 mmol/L. T2DM is a potentially reversible
>>>>>>>> condition.
>>>
>>> An a1c of < 7 is not what one would find in a "cure". The only relevant
>>> benchmark would be the 4.6 to 5 or so of the non-diabetic.
>>>
>>
>> Not so according to the American Diabetes Association
>> who says that any eAG below 154(7.0) means the diabetes has gone into
>> remission. Mine is eAG is 134(6.3).
>
> "Cure" and remission are quite different.

The dictionary descriptions may be...but essential actions
are the same. Remission is a return to the original state
in a great many cases, and that is the cure to be sought.

The 7 figure in the "conclusion"
> is the ada's number. It is also the numbner used in recent posts about a
> "cure".
>
> The only rational benchmark for same is the numbers of a non-diabetic be
> it the a1c or glucose challenge or similar test.
>

Remission IS non diabetic, diabetic is an abnormal state,
where remission is a return to the original or near original
state.

ADA-

unread,

May 23, 2016, 12:58:21 PM5/23/16

to

An 7 does not meet that definition. Close is only valid in horseshoes.

From the normal range of 5 ore below risk from complications rise
accordingly. A 7 is the number where they skyrocket. It was chosen as the
lowest number to reflect that but far from the risk level of a
non-diabetic. Concerns for hypos for insuling using folk had the ada pick
that number as much as anything.

Rhetorical nit picking about remission/reverse etc. does not a "cure" make.

Btw, there are people who achieve the 5 or so a1c range with a very low
carb diet and exercise. It would seem to me they have the only vlaid claim
for "cure" going by the a1c numbers. But still, a glucose challenge would
show he symptoms have been reversed, including a1c numbers, but the
diabetes exists still when accounting for beta cell loss.

Consider the state of beta cells as the ultimate state of diabetes:

Time for a New Classification System for Diabetes

http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/39/2/179

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD

unread,

May 23, 2016, 1:17:53 PM5/23/16

to

Someone eternally condemned and tormented opined:

>>>>>>>>>> CONCLUSIONS: A robust and sustainable weight loss program
>>>>>>>>>> achieved continuing remission of diabetes for at least 6 months
>>>>>>>>>> in the 40% who responded to a VLCD by achieving fasting plasma
>>>>>>>>>> glucose of <7 mmol/L. T2DM is a potentially reversible
>>>>>>>>>> condition.

>>>>> An a1c of < 7 is not what one would find in a "cure". The only relevant
>>>>> benchmark would be the 4.6 to 5 or so of the non-diabetic.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not so according to the American Diabetes Association
>>>> who says that any eAG below 154(7.0) means the diabetes has gone into
>>>> remission. Mine is eAG is 134(6.3).
>>>
>>> "Cure" and remission are quite different.
>>
>> The dictionary descriptions may be...but essential actions
>> are the same. Remission is a return to the original state
>> in a great many cases, and that is the cure to be sought.
>>
>>> The 7 figure in the "conclusion"
>>> is the ada's number. It is also the numbner used in recent posts about a
>>> "cure".
>>>
>>> The only rational benchmark for same is the numbers of a non-diabetic be
>>> it the a1c or glucose challenge or similar test.
>>
>> Remission IS non diabetic, diabetic is an abnormal state,
>> where remission is a return to the original or near original
>> state.
>
> An 7 does not meet that definition.

Actually an eAG (estimated average glucose) < 7 mmol/L does in fact
"meet that definition."

The estimate average glucose **includes** postprandial glucose and is
calculated from the HgbA1c.

Source:
http://www.ngsp.org/A1ceAG.asp

I give all the glory ( http://bit.ly/Psalm112_1 ) to GOD for His

compelling you to continue to unwittingly demonstrate your inability
to comprehend the diagnosis of type-2 diabetes. The latter cognitive
deficit is a consequence of being more cursed (Jeremiah 17:5) by the

LORD our Mighty (Isaiah 9:6) GOD.

May GOD continue to curse (Jeremiah 17:5) you, who are eternally
condemned and tormented more than ever, in the name of Jesus Christ of
Nazareth. Amen.

ra...@val.com

unread,

May 23, 2016, 1:33:48 PM5/23/16

to

On 23 May 2016 16:46:19 GMT, ADA*-* wrote:
>Consider the state of beta cells as the ultimate state of diabetes:

And beta cell function was improved - Big Time.

First Phase Insulin Response was doubled!

Randy

ADA-

unread,

May 23, 2016, 1:49:38 PM5/23/16

to

>>Consider the state of beta cells as the ultimate state of diabetes:
>And beta cell function was improved - Big Time.
>
>First Phase Insulin Response was doubled!

As it is commonly almost absent in a type 2, twice of not much is not
much,no? There are tests for 1st phase, how did it compare to the
non-diabetic; the only benchmark for "cure" that is logical?

ADA-

unread,

May 23, 2016, 2:07:55 PM5/23/16

to

>>>>>>>>>>> CONCLUSIONS: A robust and sustainable weight loss program
>>>>>>>>>>> achieved continuing remission of diabetes for at least 6 months
>>>>>>>>>>> in the 40% who responded to a VLCD by achieving fasting plasma
>>>>>>>>>>> glucose of <7 mmol/L. T2DM is a potentially reversible
>>>>>>>>>>> condition.
>

>>>>>> An a1c of < 7 is not what one would find in a "cure". The only relevant
>>>>>> benchmark would be the 4.6 to 5 or so of the non-diabetic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Not so according to the American Diabetes Association
>>>>> who says that any eAG below 154(7.0) means the diabetes has gone into
>>>>> remission. Mine is eAG is 134(6.3).
>>>>
>>>> "Cure" and remission are quite different.
>>>
>>> The dictionary descriptions may be...but essential actions
>>> are the same. Remission is a return to the original state
>>> in a great many cases, and that is the cure to be sought.
>>>
>>>> The 7 figure in the "conclusion"
>>>> is the ada's number. It is also the numbner used in recent posts about a
>>>> "cure".
>>>>
>>>> The only rational benchmark for same is the numbers of a non-diabetic be
>>>> it the a1c or glucose challenge or similar test.
>>>
>>> Remission IS non diabetic, diabetic is an abnormal state,
>>> where remission is a return to the original or near original
>>> state.
>>
>> An 7 does not meet that definition.
>
>Actually an eAG (estimated average glucose) < 7 mmol/L does in fact
>"meet that definition."
>
>The estimate average glucose **includes** postprandial glucose and is
>calculated from the HgbA1c.

Correct, but irrelevant to this discussion. And even more irrelevant with
the coming of continuous meters/methods so one has directed numbers not
derived ones.

If one has a 7 average which is in the 155 or so region, that means post
meal peaks exceed that to form an average 7 with the lows.

Those peaks are the source of the damage that causes complications. The
extended time the diabetic is in that peak post meal period, the more
damage results.

No "cure" seen in that bit.

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD

unread,

May 23, 2016, 2:11:37 PM5/23/16

to

Someone eternally condemned and tormented wrote:

Suggested background reading:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.med.cardiology/vnFABJwOeIY/TnwwdeySAgAJ

>>> Consider the state of beta cells as the ultimate state of diabetes:
>>
>> And beta cell function was improved - Big Time.
>>
>> First Phase Insulin Response was doubled!
>
> As it is commonly almost absent in a type 2

No.

Instead, "it is commonly almost absent" in a type 1.

In a type 2, "first phase insulin response" invariably still rises
above the basal insulin steady state level.

I give all the glory ( http://bit.ly/Psalm112_1 ) to GOD for His

compelling you to continue to unwittingly demonstrate that you are
unable to comprehend the diagnosis of type-2 diabetes. The latter

cognitive deficit is a consequence of being more cursed (Jeremiah
17:5) by the LORD our Mighty (Isaiah 9:6) GOD.

May GOD continue to curse you, who are eternally condemned and
tormented, more than ever, in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth.
Amen.

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD

unread,

May 23, 2016, 2:24:45 PM5/23/16

to

Someone eternally condemned and accursed wrote in part:

> If one has a 7 average which is in the 155 or so region, that means post
> meal peaks exceed that to form an average 7 with the lows.
>
> Those peaks are the source of the damage that causes complications.

Those peaks exceeding threshold to cause the "damage" that causes
type-2 diabetes happens in all who are http://bit.ly/TerriblyHungry
who are "wolfing down food to overeat to be full."

Addressing the cause does result in cure/remission/reversal:

http://WDJW.net/StopFoodOverdoseNow

I give all the glory ( http://bit.ly/Psalm112_1 ) to GOD for His

compelling you to continue to unwittingly demonstrate that you are

unable to comprehend cure for type-2 diabetes. The latter cognitive

deficit is a consequence of being more cursed (Jeremiah 17:5) by the
LORD our Mighty (Isaiah 9:6) GOD.

May GOD continue to curse (Jeremiah 17:5) you, who are eternally

condemned and tormented, more than ever, in the name of Jesus Christ
of Nazareth. Amen.

Francher

unread,

May 23, 2016, 3:14:15 PM5/23/16

to

My wife and I our two of those people who have achieved very low A1Cs.
My last was 4.9. We are both on a very low carb diet. However, after 15
years on this diet for my wife, and 8 for me, there has been no "cure"
whatever. If either of us eat something we should not, the meter will
tell us the bad news very quickly. We measure any unusual food for us by
checking BG every 10 minutes for 2 hours. This finds the peak for us. I
recently had a few bites of a birthday cake at a friends home. (my bad)
When I came home I was unpleasantly surprised (should not have been) to
see a spike go up to 160! Yikes. 140 is the spot where cellular damage
begins.

Again, from our experience, a VERY low carb diet is no cure for
diabetes. It is only a way of managing the disease. We consider this
management method better than using drugs. I have no T2 complications.
She had many serious complications, one very serious before she dropped
the carbs. These complications all resolved themselves except her
vision. Her full 20/20 vision was restored recently with two surgeries.
We both believe the T2 caused the cataracts. They had been so bad that
she could not even see stars at night.

Francher

BTW, my wife's complications condition was so bad that she dropped all
carbs for several months. Her improvement was so dramatic that she had
to be coaxed into eating some green vegetables now and then. She had
begun to see carbohydrate intake as equaling death for her and eating
carb free as life. There is some truth in this, but a vegetable intake
is important. The complication she was suffering with the most was heart
failure. A doctor friend of ours said she would be dead in 6 months if
she did not eat some carbs. I believe that statement was hyperbola but
had an ounce of truth.

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD

unread,

May 23, 2016, 3:28:51 PM5/23/16

to

Francher wrote:

> My wife and I our two of those people who have achieved very low A1Cs.
> My last was 4.9.

Actually, 4.9 is **not** "very low" for someone who really no longer
has type-2 diabetes.

> We are both on a very low carb diet.

No one has been proposing that a "very low carb diet" brings about
remission/reversal/cure of type-2 diabetes.

Instead, what is being proposed really is actually
http://WDJW.net/NotDiet

RandyF wrote in part:

> "After the eight-week diet the volunteers returned to normal eating
> but had advice on healthy foods and portion size. Ten of the group
> were retested and seven had stayed free of diabetes."
> ************
> They didn't need drugs and were eating a typical higher carb diet.
>
> Here's the abstract
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27002059
> <snip>
> © 2016 by the American Diabetes Association. Readers may use this
> article as long as the work is properly cited, the use is educational
> and not for profit, and the work is not altered.

Suggested discussion reading:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.med.cardiology/B-dJ_iWGRk8/y7Wt5hwlAQAJ
GysdeJongh wrote:
>
> Diabet Med. 2012 Oct 17. doi: 10.1111/dme.12039.
> The 2012 Banting Lecture Reversing the twin cycles of Type 2 diabetes.
>
> It has become widely accepted that type 2 diabetes is inevitably life-long,
> with irreversible and progressive beta cell damage. However, the restoration
> of normal glucose metabolism within days after bariatric surgery in the
> majority of people with type 2 diabetes disproves this concept. There is now
> no doubt that this reversal of diabetes depends upon the sudden and profound
> decrease in food intake, and does not relate to any direct surgical effect.
> The Counterpoint study demonstrated that normal glucose levels and normal
> beta cell function could be restored by a very low calorie diet alone. Novel
> magnetic resonance methods were applied to measure intra-organ fat. The
> results showed two different time courses: a) resolution of hepatic insulin
> sensitivity within days along with a rapid fall in liver fat and
> normalisation of fasting glucose levels; and b) return of normal beta cell
> insulin secretion over weeks in step with a fall in pancreas fat. Now that
> it has been possible to observe the pathophysiological events during
> reversal of type 2 diabetes, the reverse time course of events which
> determine the onset of the condition can be identified. The twin cycle
> hypothesis postulates that chronic calorie excess leads to accumulation of
> liver fat with eventual spill over into the pancreas. These self-reinforcing
> cycles between liver and pancreas eventually cause metabolic inhibition of
> insulin secretion after meals and onset of hyperglycaemia. It is now clear
> that Type 2 diabetes is a reversible condition of intra-organ fat excess to
> which some people are more susceptible than others.
> PMID: 23075228

Yes, stopping the causative overeating without harmful
undernourishment by holding to the right amount, which is 32 oz of
daily food, is the absolutely only **healthy** way to remove the
"intra-organ fat excess" ( http://WDJW.net/VAT ) that happens with
overeating:

https://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/48e684b2a336961e?

Yes, right amount ( http://WDJW.net/2PD-OMER Approach ) control as
Chris Malcolm, MU, **and** Rod Eastman (along with countless others
globally --> http://bit.ly/2015GHHS ) are doing is much more
sophisticated and smarter:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.support.diet.low-carb/ehvWZrH5Q9U/z0oHiET3Lo0J

and

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.med.cardiology/1r72AsO3NuQ/VkYiWMDlLFIJ
**and**

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.med.cardiology/OwIa247V2QA/taPvYBATA9oJ

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.med.cardiology/2KcDOWlEcZM/7pDF83wuXwUJ

Don't be an Ayoob or you will most certainly die a
http://bit.ly/TerriblyStupid (Mark 9:42) death:

http://bit.ly/BiblicalEsau

Be hungrier, which really is wonderfully healthier especially for
diabetics and other heart disease patients:

http://WDJW.net/HeartDocAndrewToutsHunger (Luke 6:21a) with all glory
to GOD, Who causes us to hunger (Deuteronomy 8:3) when He blesses us
right now (Luke 6:21a) thereby removing the http://WDJW.net/VAT from
around the heart

... because we mindfully choose to openly care with our heart,

HeartDoc Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Emory's IMVC.org cardiologist (GA Lic#040347)
and author of the 2PD-OMER Approach:

http://WDJW.net/Luke2442

ADA-

unread,

May 23, 2016, 4:06:43 PM5/23/16

to

>
>>>> Consider the state of beta cells as the ultimate state of diabetes:
>>>
>>> And beta cell function was improved - Big Time.
>>>
>>> First Phase Insulin Response was doubled!
>>
>> As it is commonly almost absent in a type 2
>
>No.
>
>Instead, "it is commonly almost absent" in a type 1.

Well da.>

>In a type 2, "first phase insulin response" invariably still rises
>above the basal insulin steady state level.

Sometimes, but starting near nothing, means even a small amount is "rises",
no?

Here is a good review of the topic:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11424229

In patients with impaired glucose tolerance or in the early stages of type
2 diabetes, first-phase insulin release is almost invariably lost despite
the enhancement of second-phase secretion.

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD

unread,

May 23, 2016, 5:39:21 PM5/23/16

to

Bob Officer wrote:

>> Consider the state of beta cells as the ultimate state of diabetes:
>>
>> Time for a New Classification System for Diabetes
>>
>> http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/39/2/179
>

> Interesting idea.
>
> It would stop the confusion brought about by possible abuse of of vague
> and misleading terminology

Actually, the terminology being addressed is the word "Diabetes" and
**not** remission/reversal/cure

Bob Officer wrote:
> RandyF wrote:
>> bob officer wrote:
>>> No the disease is never reverse, because either the cells that produce
>>> insulin are reduced in number, or the bodies ability to respond on a
>>> cellular level to changes in BGL and/or insulin has been effected by
>>> progress of the disease.
>>
>> But the responders in the paper under discussion Did *reverse* 1st
>> phase pancreatic response:
>> From the paper:
>> *************
>> "Recovery of acute insulin secretory capacity to nondiabetic
>> levels [20; 21] was seen in responders and not in non-responders"
>> ************

Source:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.support.diabetes/KLXIdOuhRmM/jLHTMCEeAQAJ

>> That's* huge*. And to my mind - is something more than just *control*.
>

> Again the words "recovery" is not the same as "reversal".

Actually, it is synonymous/interchangeable just as six and half-dozen
are interchangeable/synonymous.

Analogously, synonymous is interchangeable with same :-)

Moreover, being wonderfully hungry is the same as having a healthy
appetite.

Reference:
http://InnovateWithAMA.com/project/detail/52

Again, I am wonderfully hungry and hope you, Bob, also have a healthy

appetite too.

So how are you ?

... because we mindfully choose to openly care with our heart,

HeartDoc Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Emory's IMVC.org cardiologist (GA Lic#040347)
and author of the 2PD-OMER Approach:

http://JiL4ever.net/Luke2442

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD

unread,

May 23, 2016, 6:03:52 PM5/23/16

to

Someone eternally condemned and tormented wrote:

Suggested background reading:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.med.cardiology/vnFABJwOeIY/TnwwdeySAgAJ

>>>>> Consider the state of beta cells as the ultimate state of
diabetes:
>>>>
>>>> And beta cell function was improved - Big Time.
>>>>
>>>> First Phase Insulin Response was doubled!
>>>
>>> As it is commonly almost absent in a type 2
>>
>> No.
>>
>> Instead, "it is commonly almost absent" in a type 1.
>
> Well da.>
>
>> In a type 2, "first phase insulin response" invariably still rises
>> above the basal insulin steady state level.
>
> Sometimes

Invariably means always.

> , but starting near nothing

No, starting from basal which is "near nothing" in type-1 but not
type-2.

> , means even a small amount is "rises",
> no?

Though the "spike" (first-phase insulin release) of the post-prandial
rise in insulin levels may be gone, the response is still there as
evident by it running into an enhanced "second phase insulin release"
instead of generating a delayed "first phase insulin release."

>Here is a good review of the topic:
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11424229
>
> In patients with impaired glucose tolerance or in the early stages of type
> 2 diabetes, first-phase insulin release is almost invariably lost despite
> the enhancement of second-phase secretion.

Doubling the "first phase insulin response" as observed in cases of
remission/reversal/cure does in fact restore the "spike" (first-phase
insulin release) at the very beginning of the curve of post-prandial
insulin levels.

I gives all glory ( http://bit.ly/Psalm112_1 ) to GOD for His
compelling you to unwittingly continue to demonstrate that you are
unable to comprehend the diagnosis of type-2 diabetes. Again, the

some guy

unread,

May 23, 2016, 6:31:41 PM5/23/16

to

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:

can i eat 32 oz of pop tarts every day?

%

unread,

May 23, 2016, 6:35:38 PM5/23/16

to

some guy wrote:
> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
>

jesus is not god he's the son of god

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD

unread,

May 23, 2016, 6:42:08 PM5/23/16

to

satan asked:

> can i eat 32 oz of pop tarts every day?

It is written that you are cursed (Genesis 3:14) to eat only dust.

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD

unread,

May 23, 2016, 6:43:19 PM5/23/16

to

Persent answered:
> Bob Officer asked in part:
> <snip>

Suggested background reading:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.med.cardiology/B-dJ_iWGRk8/y7Wt5hwlAQAJ

>
>> Where was this study published and peer reviewed?

http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/39/5/808.long

> in my backyard

I am wonderfully hungry and hope you, Persent, also have a healthy
appetite too :-)

pyracantha

unread,

May 23, 2016, 6:46:52 PM5/23/16

to

Jesus Alou played for the Giants, he may have eaten pop tarts

32 ounces of pop tarts , the RDA , chung must concur

pyracantha

unread,

May 23, 2016, 6:48:23 PM5/23/16

to

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:

so 32 oz of pop tarts each day is ok according to you

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD

unread,

May 23, 2016, 6:56:55 PM5/23/16

to

Someone eternally condemned and tormented wrote:

> RandyF wrote:
>
>>>> CONCLUSIONS: A robust and sustainable weight loss program
>>>> achieved continuing remission of diabetes for at least 6 months
>>>> in the 40% who responded to a VLCD by achieving fasting plasma
>>>> glucose of <7 mmol/L. T2DM is a potentially reversible
>>>> condition.

Source:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.med.cardiology/B-dJ_iWGRk8/3rFYbfd6AwAJ

> An a1c of < 7 is not what one would find in a "cure". The only relevant
> benchmark would be the 4.6 to 5 or so of the non-diabetic.

All the glory ( http://bit.ly/Psalm112_1 ) to GOD for His compelling
you to unwittingly display your ignorance about the units of measure
for HgbA1c **not** being in mmol/L. Such ignorance is consistent with

your being more cursed (Jeremiah 17:5) by GOD.

Source:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.med.cardiology/vnFABJwOeIY/FY-xqBsNAgAJ

May GOD continue to curse (Jeremiah 17:5) and torment you, who are
eternally condemned, more than ever, in the name of Jesus Christ of
Nazareth. Amen.

Someone eternally condemned and tormented wrote:

> RandyF wrote:
>
>>>> CONCLUSIONS: A robust and sustainable weight loss program
>>>> achieved continuing remission of diabetes for at least 6 months
>>>> in the 40% who responded to a VLCD by achieving fasting plasma
>>>> glucose of <7 mmol/L. T2DM is a potentially reversible
>>>> condition.

Source:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.med.cardiology/B-dJ_iWGRk8/3rFYbfd6AwAJ

>>> The study had 30 people? And had only less than half classed as
>>> responders to the treatment.
>>
>> 50% cure rate is pretty impressive.
>
> The small number of participants in this study (30) doesn't inspire
> confidence in the results.

The purpose of a larger number (N) of partipants would be to ensure
that a study is adequately powered to detect a small effect.

The "small number" excuse to reject the results of a study would be
justified if there were **no** findings with the rationale being that
the study was underpowered to detect small effects and consequently
missed them.

Such an excuse is not applicable here since the "50% cure rate" is a
very large effect.

Clearly you have no comprehension of statistics. Such cognitive

deficits are consistent with your being more cursed (Jeremiah 17:5) by
GOD.

Source:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.med.cardiology/B-dJ_iWGRk8/wH7GbAo5AAAJ

May GOD continue to curse (Jeremiah 17:5) and torment you, who are
eternally condemned, more than ever, in the name of Jesus Christ of
Nazareth. Amen.

Someone eternally condemned and tormented wrote:

>> In a type 2, "first phase insulin response" invariably still rises
>> above the basal insulin steady state level.

Source:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.support.diabetes/V2oqBfGR9MY/fgBEB3OhAgAJ

May GOD continue to curse (Jeremiah 17:5) and torment you, who are
eternally condemned, more than ever, in the name of Jesus Christ of
Nazareth.
Amen.

Someone eternally condemned and tormented wrote:

> I forgive you.

Exposing you is not sin but rather it's keeping the LORD's commandment
(Matthew 5:16)

Many thanks, much praise, and all the glory to GOD for His compelling
you to remind us that we who are His http://WDJW.net/Redeemed have
already been http://WDJW.net/Forgiven by Him as evident by our being
new creatures in Christ (2 Corinthians 5:17) publicly saying "Jesus is
LORD" with our mouth (Romans 10:9) unto salvation (Romans 10:10) for
all to witness at Jesus' http://WDJW.net web site :-)

Laus Deo !!!

Source:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.med.cardiology/1psFMsQWkAw/0V1sS3C-QZ8J

Someone eternally condemned and tormented wrote:

> "Finally, all of you be of one mind, having compassion for one another;
> love as brothers, be tenderhearted, be courteous." 1 Peter 3:8

Yes, this is directed towards those of us, who, unlike you who are
eternally condemned, have been http://WDJW.net/Redeemed as evident by
our publicly saying "Jesus is LORD" with our mouth (Romans 10:9) unto
salvation (Romans 10:10) for all to witness at our LORD's
http://WDJW.net/ web site and so we have compassion towards each other
instead of towards those like you who are being forever tormented by
the LORD our GOD, Who hates you just as He hates Esau (Malachi 1:2-3)
for his lying that hunger is starvation (Genesis 25:32).

> May God bless and protect and provide peace at last.

Many thanks, much praise, and all the glory to GOD for His compelling
you to unwittingly reveal that not only do you not know how to pray to
Him, you also do not have either His blessing or His protection or His
peace which is consistent with your being forever tormented by Him.

May GOD continue to openly curse (Jeremiah 17:5) and torment you, who
are eternally condemned, more than ever thereby ever comforting those
of us who are His http://WDJW.net/Redeemed in the name of Jesus Christ
of Nazareth. Amen.

Source:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.med.cardiology/l962_mp1wzo/b9OPa1Mbmx4J

Someone eternally condemned and tormented wrote:

> I'm sorry ...

Those who say/write that they are sorry unwittingly reveal that they
are indeed accursed for those of us who are http://WDJW.net/Forgiven
always say/write with all due (Romans 13:8) love (1 Peter 3:8) that we
repent.

Many thanks, much praise, and all the glory to GOD for His compelling
you to unwittingly prove yet again that you are fovever accursed.

Source:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.med.cardiology/Sz4t6AlA3Eo/RiUDbW9AwD4J

Someone eternally condemned and tormented wrote:
>

> not what goes into the mouth defiles a man, but what comes out of the
> mouth, this defiles a man. Matt. 15:11

Source:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.med.cardiology/CZ8vV8ygnZw/xXiBrV7oVgwJ

Some additional examples:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.med.cardiology/VUmQFOoArtw/TrTeRjdCcgAJ

and

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.med.cardiology/ize6zJm-cYE/BimXAx4trOcJ

Indeed, if what comes "out of the mouth" (Matthew 15:11) is either not
the phrase "wonderfully hungry" or doesn't cause (Deuteronomy 8:3)
others to be http://WDJW.net/WonderfullyHungrier now (Luke 6:21a) then
they are words that defile and prove that the source is like you who
are accursed like satan who is not hungry as evident by his eating
dust (Genesis 3:14) instead of real food.

Many thanks, much praise, and all glory to GOD for His compelling you
to unwittingly continue to prove that you are eternally condemned and
always accursed.

Source:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.med.cardiology/bncjgZjc2q4/Km9VWrPGh68J

Someone eternally condemned and tormented wrote:

> Markea Berry ...

Source:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.med.cardiology/XLpEpoxeecU/mOMtz7yzcMQJ

Some additional examples:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.med.cardiology/3N6bKuVT9Og/_B_GuBjcXMgJ

and

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.med.cardiology/tnSQcYqVu5s/kQ2kdFSOxmAJ

Many thanks, much praise, and all the glory to GOD for His compelling
you to unwittingly allow us to know that Markea's
http://WDJW.net/Ghost is haunting you by cutting down members of your
household one by one in answer to our prayers to the LORD our GOD, in
the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth:

http://bit.ly/13G1gKE

Laus Deo !!!

http://WDJW.net/LausDeo

Someone eternally condemned and tormented wrote:
>

> "Bariatric surgeons have in the peer-reviewed medical literature documented
> cases of type-2 diabetes being cured,"

Source:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.med.cardiology/B-dJ_iWGRk8/1fQmfxxrAQAJ

> False, they only go as far as saying "reverse" or some similar term.

"Reverse" is a similar term to cure in that they are interchangeable
(i.e. synonymous):

To reverse type-1 diabetes would be to cure it.

To reverse Multiple Sclerosis would be to cure it.

To reverse Parkinson's disease would be to cure it.

CHECKMATE :-)

I give all the glory ( http://bit.ly/Psalm112_1 ) to GOD for His
compelling you to unwittingly CHECKMATE yourself here. The latter

self-defeat is consistent with your being more cursed (Jeremiah 17:5)

by the LORD our Mighty (Isaiah 9:6) GOD.

May GOD continue to curse (Jeremiah 17:5) you, who are eternally

condemned and tormented, more than ever, in the name of Jesus Christ
of Nazareth.

Amen.

HeartDoc Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Emory's IMVC.org cardiologist (GA Lic#040347)
and author of the 2PD-OMER Approach:

unread,

May 23, 2016, 7:34:39 PM5/23/16

to

you can even eat 33 if you like

unread,

May 23, 2016, 7:50:51 PM5/23/16

to

Persent answered:
> Bob Officer asked in part:
> <snip>

Suggested background reading:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.med.cardiology/B-dJ_iWGRk8/y7Wt5hwlAQAJ

>
>> Where was this study published and peer reviewed?

http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/39/5/808.long

> in my backyard

I am wonderfully hungry and hope you, Persent, also have a healthy
appetite too :-)

So how are you ?

... because we mindfully choose to openly care with our heart,

HeartDoc Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Emory's IMVC.org cardiologist (GA Lic#040347)
and author of the 2PD-OMER Approach:

http://JiL4ever.net/Luke2442

pyracantha

unread,

May 23, 2016, 7:52:35 PM5/23/16

to

Maya Zuiderweg schreef:

> ..you'll be eternally damned forever and ever.. :oŞ

Dr. Chung is not in the position to remove the Holy Spirit from me.

he would be close to blaspheming the Holy Spirit himself

inasmuch as he has called me "satan" albeit, one may be

a 'satan' as in 'adversarial' and not be The Devil

but i'm not even being adversarial with Dr. Chung, anyway

i simply ask if i can eat 32 oz of pop tarts each day.

he's being defensive for no reason.

pyracantha

unread,

May 23, 2016, 7:54:49 PM5/23/16

to

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:

> pyracantha wrote:

> >> > can i eat 32 oz of pop tarts each day?

> >> No according to Genesis 3:14

> > i'm a human being asking you if i can eat 32 oz of pop tarts each day

> Eternally condemned and tormented Judas Iscariot was a human being too
> until satan entered into him.

asking if one may eat 32 oz of pop tarts each day is not evidence

that 'satan' has entered into anyone.

take care not to blaspheme the Holy Spirit Mr. Chung.

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD

unread,

May 23, 2016, 8:00:04 PM5/23/16

to

Maya Zuiderweg wrote:
> Someone eternally condemned and tormented wrote:

>> % wrote:
>>> Someone eternally condemned and tormented wrote:

>>>> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>>>>> Someone eternally condemned and tormented asked:

>>
>>>>>> can i eat 32 oz of pop tarts every day?
>>
>>>>> It is written that you are cursed (Genesis 3:14) to eat only dust.

Source:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.med.cardiology/vnFABJwOeIY/Nq1_7FKoAgAJ

>>>> so 32 oz of pop tarts each day is ok according to you
>>
>>> you can even eat 33 if you like
>>
>> that wouldn't be in accord with Dr. Chung's dietary recommendation of 32
>> oz of food per day.
>

>..you'll be eternally damned forever and ever.. :oŞ

Such is the condition of those cursed (Genesis 3:14) to eat dust
instead of food.

Yes, they are terribly **not** hungry.

I am instead wonderfully hungry and hope you, Maya, also have a

pyracantha

unread,

May 23, 2016, 8:02:59 PM5/23/16

to

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:

> Maya Zuiderweg wrote:

> > pyracantha wrote:

> >> % wrote:

> >>>>>> can i eat 32 oz of pop tarts every day?

> >>>>> It is written that you are cursed (Genesis 3:14) to eat only dust.

> >>>> so 32 oz of pop tarts each day is ok according to you

> >>> you can even eat 33 if you like

> >> that wouldn't be in accord with Dr. Chung's dietary
> >> recommendation of 32 oz of food per day.

> >..you'll be eternally damned forever and ever.. :oŞ

> Such is the condition of those cursed (Genesis 3:14) to eat dust
> instead of food.

> Yes, they are terribly **not** hungry.

i'm hungry, i like pop tarts they come in a wide variety

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD

unread,

May 23, 2016, 8:12:58 PM5/23/16

to

Someone eternally condemned and tormented wrote:

> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:

>> Someone eternally condemned and tormented asked:

>
>> >> > can i eat 32 oz of pop tarts each day?
>
>> >> No according to Genesis 3:14
>
>> > i'm a human being asking you if i can eat 32 oz of pop tarts each day
>
>> Eternally condemned and tormented Judas Iscariot was a human being too
>> until satan entered into him.
>
>
> asking if one may eat 32 oz of pop tarts each day is not evidence
> that 'satan' has entered into anyone.

Otoh, lack of discernment is evidence that satan has entered into you.

> take care not to blaspheme the Holy Spirit Mr. Chung.

Referring to yourself as the Holy Spirit is in fact blaspheming
against Him.

I give all glory ( http://bit.ly/Psalm112_1 ) to GOD for His
compelling you to unwittingly prove that you are eternally condemned.
The latter is a consequence of being more cursed (Jeremiah 17:5) by

the LORD our Mighty (Isaiah 9:6) GOD.

May GOD continue to curse (Jeremiah 17:5) and torment you, who are
eternally condemned, more than ever, in the name of Jesus Christ of
Nazareth. Amen.

Source:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.med.cardiology/vnFABJwOeIY/Nq1_7FKoAgAJ

pyracantha

unread,

May 23, 2016, 8:20:01 PM5/23/16

to

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:

> pyracantha wrote:

> > Andrew wrote:

> >> pyracantha wrote:

> >> >> > can i eat 32 oz of pop tarts each day?

> >> >> No according to Genesis 3:14

> >> > i'm a human being asking you if i can eat 32 oz of pop tarts each day

> >> Eternally condemned and tormented Judas Iscariot was a human being too
> >> until satan entered into him.

> > asking if one may eat 32 oz of pop tarts each day is not evidence
> > that 'satan' has entered into anyone.

> Otoh, lack of discernment is evidence that satan has entered into you.

i ask again, in your opinion, can i eat 32 oz of pop tarts each day?

> > take care not to blaspheme the Holy Spirit Mr. Chung.

> Referring to yourself as the Holy Spirit is in fact blaspheming
> against Him.

not that i have done so, but it is not, blasheming the Holy Spirit
to align oneself with the Holy Spirit

but you are near blaspheming the Holy Spirit when you call
one filled with the Holy Spirit filled with a demon.

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD

unread,

May 23, 2016, 8:38:21 PM5/23/16

to

Someone eternally condemned and tormented perseverated:

> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>> Someone eternally condemned and tormented wrote:
>> > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>> >> Someone eternally condemned and tormented asked:
>

>> >> >> > can i eat 32 oz of pop tarts each day?
>
>> >> >> No according to Genesis 3:14
>
>> >> > i'm a human being asking you if i can eat 32 oz of pop tarts each day
>
>> >> Eternally condemned and tormented Judas Iscariot was a human being too
>> >> until satan entered into him.
>
>> > asking if one may eat 32 oz of pop tarts each day is not evidence
>> > that 'satan' has entered into anyone.
>
>> Otoh, lack of discernment is evidence that satan has entered into you.
>
> i ask again, in your opinion, can i eat 32 oz of pop tarts each day?

Again, the answer is no according to Genesis 3:14

>> > take care not to blaspheme the Holy Spirit Mr. Chung.
>
>> Referring to yourself as the Holy Spirit is in fact blaspheming
>> against Him.
>
> not that i have done so

Actually you have.

>, but it is not, blasheming the Holy Spirit
> to align oneself with the Holy Spirit

To write that you "align oneself with the Holy Spirit" as if He were
comparable in size to yourself is to again blaspheme against Him.

I give all glory ( http://bit.ly/Psalm112_1 ) to GOD for His

pyracantha

unread,

May 23, 2016, 8:47:14 PM5/23/16

to

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:

> pyracantha wrote:

> > Andrew wrote:

> >> pyracantha wrote

> >> > Andrew wrote:

> >> >> pyracantha wrote:

> >> >> >> > can i eat 32 oz of pop tarts each day?

> >> >> >> No according to Genesis 3:14

> >> >> > i'm a human being asking you if i can eat 32 oz of pop tarts each day

> >> >> Eternally condemned and tormented Judas Iscariot was a human being too
> >> >> until satan entered into him.

> >> > asking if one may eat 32 oz of pop tarts each day is not evidence
> >> > that 'satan' has entered into anyone.

> >> Otoh, lack of discernment is evidence that satan has entered into you.

> > i ask again, in your opinion, can i eat 32 oz of pop tarts each day?

> Again, the answer is no according to Genesis 3:14

so the Chung dietary plan is not just; "32 oz of food per day"

32 oz of pop tarts are excluded even though pop tarts

come in a delicious wide variety.

"32 oz of food per day" is not a working dietary plan.

"32 oz of food per day" is just a nonsense tale

%

unread,

May 23, 2016, 8:48:48 PM5/23/16

to

who cares

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD

unread,

May 23, 2016, 8:54:06 PM5/23/16

to

Persent answered:
> Bob Officer asked in part:
> <snip>

Suggested background reading:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.med.cardiology/B-dJ_iWGRk8/y7Wt5hwlAQAJ

>
>> Where was this study published and peer reviewed?

http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/39/5/808.long

> in my backyard

I am wonderfully hungry and hope you, Persent, also have a healthy

appetite too :-)

So how are you ?

... because we mindfully choose to openly care with our heart,

HeartDoc Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Emory's IMVC.org cardiologist (GA Lic#040347)
and author of the 2PD-OMER Approach:

http://JiL4ever.net/Luke2442

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD

unread,

May 23, 2016, 8:55:28 PM5/23/16

to

Someone eternally condemned and tormented perseverated:
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>> Someone eternally condemned and tormented wrote:
>> > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>> >> Someone eternally condemned and tormented asked:
>

>> >> >> > can i eat 32 oz of pop tarts each day?
>
>> >> >> No according to Genesis 3:14
>
>> >> > i'm a human being asking you if i can eat 32 oz of pop tarts each day
>
>> >> Eternally condemned and tormented Judas Iscariot was a human being too
>> >> until satan entered into him.
>
>> > asking if one may eat 32 oz of pop tarts each day is not evidence
>> > that 'satan' has entered into anyone.
>
>> Otoh, lack of discernment is evidence that satan has entered into you.
>
> i ask again, in your opinion, can i eat 32 oz of pop tarts each day?

Again, the answer is no according to Genesis 3:14

pyracantha

unread,

May 23, 2016, 9:00:33 PM5/23/16

to

good for who, or maybe not so good for who inasmuch as the Chung
dietary plan seems indefensible except by demonizing anyone who
even asks simple questions about it.

pyracantha

unread,

May 23, 2016, 9:01:40 PM5/23/16

to

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:

> pyracantha wrote:

> > Andrew wrote:

> >> pyracantha wrote

> >> > Andrew wrote:

> >> >> pyracantha wrote:

> >> >> >> > can i eat 32 oz of pop tarts each day?

> >> >> >> No according to Genesis 3:14

> >> >> > i'm a human being asking you if i can eat 32 oz of pop tarts each day

> >> >> Eternally condemned and tormented Judas Iscariot was a human being too
> >> >> until satan entered into him.

> >> > asking if one may eat 32 oz of pop tarts each day is not evidence
> >> > that 'satan' has entered into anyone.

> >> Otoh, lack of discernment is evidence that satan has entered into you.

> > i ask again, in your opinion, can i eat 32 oz of pop tarts each day?

> Again, the answer is no according to Genesis 3:14

pyracantha

unread,

May 23, 2016, 9:03:48 PM5/23/16

to

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:

> So how are you ?

i'm fine, i have very healthy appetite, but as we see

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD

unread,

May 23, 2016, 9:10:07 PM5/23/16

to

Someone eternally condemned and tormented perseverated:
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>> Someone eternally condemned and tormented wrote:
>> > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>> >> Someone eternally condemned and tormented asked:
>

>> >> >> > can i eat 32 oz of pop tarts each day?
>
>> >> >> No according to Genesis 3:14
>
>> >> > i'm a human being asking you if i can eat 32 oz of pop tarts each day
>
>> >> Eternally condemned and tormented Judas Iscariot was a human being too
>> >> until satan entered into him.
>
>> > asking if one may eat 32 oz of pop tarts each day is not evidence
>> > that 'satan' has entered into anyone.
>
>> Otoh, lack of discernment is evidence that satan has entered into you.
>
> i ask again, in your opinion, can i eat 32 oz of pop tarts each day?

Again, the answer is no according to Genesis 3:14

pyracantha

unread,

May 23, 2016, 9:13:28 PM5/23/16

to

%

unread,

May 23, 2016, 11:08:34 PM5/23/16

to

you have a chung obsession

pyracantha

unread,

May 24, 2016, 7:58:00 AM5/24/16

to

if chun king made egg roll pop tarts then you'd be on to something

as it is, you're just dabbling in armchair psychiatry

The Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion will
not soon be adopting the Chung Dietary guidelines, as

"32 oz of food each day"

says zero about nutirent density and this is not
explicitly stated in the proposed Chung guideline.

"32 oz of a wide variety of delicious food"

is equally useless and vapid

one could take the Chung guideline and
eat only 32 oz of pop tarts each day.

when confronted with the failures of his guideline, he will only say;

"satan has possessed you to fault my dietary guideline"

he'll never likely suffer a malpractice suit because when a judge
bangs his gavel, Chung will scream;

"satan has possessed you judge, may you be eternally cursed"

and the bailiff will escort mr. chung to a holding cell
on a contempt of court citation pending a thorough mental examination.

it'll never get to trial, much like the Chung guideline itself.

unread,

May 24, 2016, 11:28:15 AM5/24/16

to

no , i don't like psychiatry i'm a psychologist and you have a chung
obsession

duke

unread,

May 25, 2016, 8:17:17 AM5/25/16

to

Does this mean we should be like the birds in the air given free worms to eat?

unread,

May 26, 2016, 3:10:40 PM5/26/16

to

We realize, but we don't eat worms.

duke

unread,

May 26, 2016, 3:13:09 PM5/26/16

to

On Wed, 25 May 2016 09:03:57 -0400, pyracantha <py...@ntha.in.garden> wrote:

>duke wrote:
>
>> pyracantha wrote:
>
>> > duke wrote:
>
>> >> pyracantha wrote:
>
>> >> > Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
>
>> >> >> satan asked:
>
>> >> >> > can i eat 32 oz of pop tarts every day?
>
>> >> >> It is written that you are cursed (Genesis 3:14) to eat only dust.
>
>> >> >so 32 oz of pop tarts each day is ok according to you
>
>> >> His definition of food is different than yours.
>
>> >pop tarts have Nutrition Facts labelling as regulated
>> >by the US FDA on foodstuff packaging. in other words,
>> >the US Federal Gubbment seems to indicate that
>> >pop tarts are a food product.
>
>> I would suspect that the labeling allows for intelligence on the part of the
>> buyer. Woe be the parent too dumb to understand. Worst yet, woe be the kids.

>do you wear Christ's collarlike yoke which is easy and light, not
>burdensome at all,

Yes.

>or do you 'follow' from a distance as would some stray dog, camp
>follower, seeking
>only whatever gain may be garnered as if crumbs should fall from the
>children's table?

>do you hear and recognize the Shepherd's voice and does this Shepherd
>know you,
>or would you 'follow' from afar preying upon The Sheep as a hungry dog
>in disguise?

We help shepherd the sheep.

pyracantha

unread,

May 26, 2016, 6:42:26 PM5/26/16

to

Jesus says that He, as Shepherd, knows His sheep
and His sheep know him, ...personally, they know
and recognize His voice and will not follow
a stranger or 'another' [see John 10]

what exactly is the problem in calling this a "personal relationship?"

do you say that the 'sheep' you help to shepherd,
do not -need- to 'know' the voice of The Shepherd
as long as they recognize -your- voice?

Jesus says otherwise.

Jesus seems to consider the Apostles as His sheep.

pyracantha

unread,

May 26, 2016, 6:51:33 PM5/26/16

to

duke wrote:

> pyracantha wrote:

> > duke wrote:

> >> pyracantha wrote:

> >> > duke wrote:

> >> >> pyracantha wrote:

> >> >> >the Chung dietary plan is not just; "32 oz of food per day"

> >> >> >32 oz of pop tarts are excluded even though pop tarts

> >> >> "Food" is a dead giveaway when the user is looking for a good daily diet.

> >> >John 4:34

> >> >Jesus said to them,

> >> >“My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me, and to finish His work.

> >> >John 6:27
> >> >Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which
> >> >endures to everlasting life, which the Son of Man will give you,
> >> >because God the Father has set His seal on Him.”

> >> Does this mean we should be like the birds in the air given free worms to eat?

> > isn't that the way it is anyway, even for those who
> > do not realize from where their benefit comes?

> We realize, but we don't eat worms.

if you teach a man to fish, he can catch many flies with vinegar
if you give a man a fish, it will eat all of your wurms

"wake up you lazy bum and do some work around the house"
the Buddha's mother

"just remember, you can only eat 32 oz of wurms in a day" [chung]

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD

unread,

May 26, 2016, 7:09:11 PM5/26/16

to

pyracantha

unread,

May 26, 2016, 7:13:15 PM5/26/16

to

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:

> pyracantha wrote:

> > Andrew wrote:

> >> > pyracantha wrote:

> >> > Andrew wrote:

> >> >> > pyracantha wrote:

> >> >> >> > can i eat 32 oz of pop tarts each day?

> >> >> >> No according to Genesis 3:14

> >> >> > i'm a human being asking you if i can eat 32 oz of pop tarts each day

> >> >> Eternally condemned and tormented Judas Iscariot was a human being too
> >> >> until satan entered into him.

> >> > asking if one may eat 32 oz of pop tarts each day is not evidence
> >> > that 'satan' has entered into anyone.

> >> Otoh, lack of discernment is evidence that satan has entered into you.

> > i ask again, in your opinion, can i eat 32 oz of pop tarts each day?

> Again, the answer is no according to Genesis 3:14

so the Chung dietary plan is not just; "32 oz of food per day"

32 oz of pop tarts are excluded even though pop tarts

come in a delicious wide variety.

"32 oz of food per day" is not a working dietary plan.

"32 oz of food per day" is just a nonsense tale

> >> > take care not to blaspheme the Holy Spirit Mr. Chung.

> >> Referring to yourself as the Holy Spirit is in fact blaspheming
> >> against Him.

> > not that i have done so

> Actually you have.

no, i said

asking if one may eat 32 oz of pop tarts each day is not evidence that
'satan'

has entered into anyone. take care not to blaspheme the Holy Spirit
Mr. Chung.

and also;

but it is not, blasheming the Holy Spirit to align oneself with the Holy
Spirit

but you are near blaspheming the Holy Spirit when you call one filled
with
the Holy Spirit filled with a demon.

this does not call pyracantha the Holy Spirit but merely
in alignment as one filled with the Holy Spirit is.

if you behave this way when presenting your dietary recommendations
at a convention of the American Medical Association, the audiance
will likely walk out.

> >, but it is not, blasheming the Holy Spirit
> > to align oneself with the Holy Spirit

> To write that you "align oneself with the Holy Spirit" as if He were
> comparable in size to yourself is to again blaspheme against Him.

false, as 'alignment' has nothing to do with size of objects;

---
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/align?s=t

align

verb (used with object)

2. to bring into a line or alignment.

3. to bring into cooperation or agreement with [my examples in
brackets]
a particular group, party, cause, etc.:
He aligned himself with the liberals.
[[[the Holy Spirit aligned her with Jesus Christ]]]
[[[ Jesus Christ aligned him with the Holy Spirit]]]
[[[pyracantha has become aligned with the Holy Spirit]]]

verb (used without object)

5. to fall or come into line; be in line.
[[[pyracantha became aligned with the Holy Spirit]]]

6. to join with others in a cause.
---

> I give all glory ( http://bit.ly/Psalm112_1 ) to GOD for His
> compelling you to unwittingly continue to prove that you are eternally
> condemned. The latter is a consequence of being more cursed (Jeremiah
> 17:5) by the LORD our Mighty (Isaiah 9:6) GOD.

Jeremiah 17:5

Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man,
and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD.

and this would be you as you cary those man made credentials around with
you in your postings

you claim to speak in the Holy Spirit, but for support you
end you postings with a signature line which reads;

\\\

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Emory's IMVC.org cardiologist (GA Lic#040347)

///

you rely on man made credentials to support your so-called Holy Spirit
annointing.

The Holy Spirit doesn't need your human credentials for support.

you trusteth in man

> May GOD continue to curse (Jeremiah 17:5) and torment you, who are
> eternally condemned, more than ever, in the name of Jesus Christ of
> Nazareth. Amen.

may God actually bless you with the Holy Spirit

this will not help the Chung dietary protocol however

as it is a miserable example of quackery.

pyracantha

unread,

May 26, 2016, 7:14:37 PM5/26/16

to

> "wake up you lazy bum and do some work around the house"
> the Buddha's mother

> "just remember, you can only eat 32 oz of wurms in a day" [chung]

sometimes referred to as; the Diet of Wurms

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD

unread,

May 26, 2016, 7:42:02 PM5/26/16

to

Someone eternally condemned and tormented perseverated:
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>> Someone eternally condemned and tormented wrote:
>> > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>> >> Someone eternally condemned and tormented asked:
>

>> >> >> > can i eat 32 oz of pop tarts each day?
>
>> >> >> No according to Genesis 3:14
>
>> >> > i'm a human being asking you if i can eat 32 oz of pop tarts each day
>
>> >> Eternally condemned and tormented Judas Iscariot was a human being too
>> >> until satan entered into him.
>
>> > asking if one may eat 32 oz of pop tarts each day is not evidence
>> > that 'satan' has entered into anyone.
>
>> Otoh, lack of discernment is evidence that satan has entered into you.
>
> i ask again, in your opinion, can i eat 32 oz of pop tarts each day?

Again, the answer is no according to Genesis 3:14

>> > take care not to blaspheme the Holy Spirit Mr. Chung.
>
>> Referring to yourself as the Holy Spirit is in fact blaspheming
>> against Him.
>
> not that i have done so

Actually you have.

>, but it is not, blasheming the Holy Spirit
> to align oneself with the Holy Spirit

To write that you "align oneself with the Holy Spirit" as if He were
comparable in size to yourself is to again blaspheme against Him.

I give all glory ( http://bit.ly/Psalm112_1 ) to GOD for His
compelling you to unwittingly continue to prove that you are eternally
condemned. The latter is a consequence of being more cursed (Jeremiah
17:5) by the LORD our Mighty (Isaiah 9:6) GOD.

May GOD continue to curse (Jeremiah 17:5) and torment you, who are
eternally condemned, more than ever, in the name of Jesus Christ of
Nazareth. Amen.

Source:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.med.cardiology/vnFABJwOeIY/Nq1_7FKoAgAJ

Someone eternally condemned and tormented wrote:
> RandyF wrote:
>
>>>> CONCLUSIONS: A robust and sustainable weight loss program
>>>> achieved continuing remission of diabetes for at least 6 months
>>>> in the 40% who responded to a VLCD by achieving fasting plasma
>>>> glucose of <7 mmol/L. T2DM is a potentially reversible
>>>> condition.

Source:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.med.cardiology/B-dJ_iWGRk8/3rFYbfd6AwAJ

> An a1c of < 7 is not what one would find in a "cure". The only relevant
> benchmark would be the 4.6 to 5 or so of the non-diabetic.

All the glory ( http://bit.ly/Psalm112_1 ) to GOD for His compelling
you to unwittingly display your ignorance about the units of measure
for HgbA1c **not** being in mmol/L. Such ignorance is consistent with

your being more cursed (Jeremiah 17:5) by GOD.

Source:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.med.cardiology/vnFABJwOeIY/FY-xqBsNAgAJ

May GOD continue to curse (Jeremiah 17:5) and torment you, who are
eternally condemned, more than ever, in the name of Jesus Christ of
Nazareth. Amen.

Someone eternally condemned and tormented wrote:
> RandyF wrote:
>
>>>> CONCLUSIONS: A robust and sustainable weight loss program
>>>> achieved continuing remission of diabetes for at least 6 months
>>>> in the 40% who responded to a VLCD by achieving fasting plasma
>>>> glucose of <7 mmol/L. T2DM is a potentially reversible
>>>> condition.

Source:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.med.cardiology/B-dJ_iWGRk8/3rFYbfd6AwAJ

>>> The study had 30 people? And had only less than half classed as
>>> responders to the treatment.
>>
>> 50% cure rate is pretty impressive.
>
> The small number of participants in this study (30) doesn't inspire
> confidence in the results.

The purpose of a larger number (N) of partipants would be to ensure
that a study is adequately powered to detect a small effect.

The "small number" excuse to reject the results of a study would be
justified if there were **no** findings with the rationale being that
the study was underpowered to detect small effects and consequently
missed them.

Such an excuse is not applicable here since the "50% cure rate" is a
very large effect.

Clearly you have no comprehension of statistics. Such cognitive

deficits are consistent with your being more cursed (Jeremiah 17:5) by
GOD.

Source:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.med.cardiology/B-dJ_iWGRk8/wH7GbAo5AAAJ

May GOD continue to curse (Jeremiah 17:5) and torment you, who are
eternally condemned, more than ever, in the name of Jesus Christ of
Nazareth. Amen.

latter cognitive deficit is a consequence of being more cursed

(Jeremiah 17:5) by the LORD our Mighty (Isaiah 9:6) GOD.

May GOD continue to curse (Jeremiah 17:5) and torment you, who are
eternally condemned, more than ever, in the name of Jesus Christ of
Nazareth. Amen.

of us who are His http://WDJW.net/Redeemed in the name of Jesus Christ
of Nazareth. Amen.

self-defeat is consistent with your being more cursed (Jeremiah 17:5)

by the LORD our Mighty (Isaiah 9:6) GOD.

May GOD continue to curse (Jeremiah 17:5) you, who are eternally

condemned and tormented, more than ever, in the name of Jesus Christ
of Nazareth.

Amen.

HeartDoc Andrew <><
--

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Emory's IMVC.org cardiologist (GA Lic#040347)

duke

unread,

May 27, 2016, 6:42:56 AM5/27/16

to

On Thu, 26 May 2016 19:13:22 -0400, pyracantha <py...@ntha.in.garden> wrote:

>> Again, the answer is no according to Genesis 3:14

>so the Chung dietary plan is not just; "32 oz of food per day"
>32 oz of pop tarts are excluded even though pop tarts
>come in a delicious wide variety.
>"32 oz of food per day" is not a working dietary plan.
>"32 oz of food per day" is just a nonsense tale

I have a friend that professes no more food at a meal than the volume of his
fist.

I hope this doesn't mean that you will try to eat your fist.

pyracantha

unread,

May 27, 2016, 6:54:15 AM5/27/16

to

duke wrote:

> pyracantha wrote:

> >> Again, the answer is no according to Genesis 3:14

> >so the Chung dietary plan is not just; "32 oz of food per day"
> >32 oz of pop tarts are excluded even though pop tarts
> >come in a delicious wide variety.
> >"32 oz of food per day" is not a working dietary plan.
> >"32 oz of food per day" is just a nonsense tale

> I have a friend that professes no more food at a meal than the volume of his fist.

> I hope this doesn't mean that you will try to eat your fist.

no, but the Count is showing me how to catch spiders and
eat them whole so i can attain eternal life...drinking blood

duke

unread,

May 27, 2016, 7:32:21 AM5/27/16

to

How do they taste?

duke

unread,

May 27, 2016, 7:41:02 AM5/27/16

to

That's right.

>what exactly is the problem in calling this a "personal relationship?"

It actually results in so many sheep refusing to follow Jesus and his teachings.
They seek a "personal relationship" but just don't get it that they're mandated
to follow Jesus.

Mikey Christ, repete, etc are two that truly haven't figured it out yet.

>do you say that the 'sheep' you help to shepherd,
>do not -need- to 'know' the voice of The Shepherd
>as long as they recognize -your- voice?

Nope. A truly weird question.

>Jesus says otherwise.

>Jesus seems to consider the Apostles as His sheep.

They were his first teachers to guide the sheep. He called them to be fishers
of men.

pyracantha

unread,

May 27, 2016, 9:41:14 AM5/27/16

to

yes..., it is.

> >what exactly is the problem in calling this a "personal relationship?"

> It actually results in so many sheep refusing to follow Jesus and his teachings.
> They seek a "personal relationship" but just don't get it that they're mandated
> to follow Jesus.

but Jesus said, [paraphrasing]

"where i am going you cannot come, But, i will send back Word
as a Comfort and this Comfort will live inside you and you
will actually Know The Truth, which I am, and tat Truth will
make you Free indeed and in truth."

essentially saying that 'we' -cannot- follow Jesus where he is -going-,
but, that, He will send a Presence that will abide in the 'believer'
and the Kingdom of God will truly be 'in your midst'

this personal Presence of Christ in the believer Is what constitutes "the Church"

there should be a billion Saints walking the planet, with a flood of
the knowledge of God covering the surface as an ocean, together as
a "Royal Priesthood a holy nation, His own special people,"
proclaiming the praises of Him who called them out of darkness
into His marvelous light.

not a worldly empire escorting a 'laity' back into perpetual darknesses

if you have not the Spirit of God, you are NONE of His...

no 'other' intermediate is necessary nor required nor even very useful,
aside from God's own Presence within the =people= that constitute
the Church itself.

you want to maintain some sense of 'order'? fine

but, does not your own ope call for a "new evangelisation?'

well, Evangelization is a GIFT of THE SPIRIT and -not-

a matter of relaying the learning of men

and you do not receive GIFTS of THE SPIRIT is you have NOT

the SPIRIT in the first place.

and like it or not, this SPIRIT -in- people constitutes
a "personal relationship" between God and people.

and =NOT= simply; "adoration from a distance"

does that make any sense to you at all?

the Church in people is not just some political tool whose chief utility

is to maintain a sense of -worldly- Imperial Order.

you must realize this to be true.

otherwise you will forver be defending the excesses of -men-
and not the Pure Faith which is a tasty treat which you can
eat 32 million oz of and not quite be filled.

and not defending "men" who -are- filled with the Holy Ghost, but some men
who simply 'appear' to be wearing the appropriate attire as a 'cloak for vice'
but who, in reality, have never known nor been known By Christ.

> >do you say that the 'sheep' you help to shepherd,
> >do not -need- to 'know' the voice of The Shepherd
> >as long as they recognize -your- voice?

> Nope. A truly weird question.

not really wierd, inasmuch as the people -must- access God directly
through the Spirit of Christ and not through any other sort of
human intermediary.

if the so-called 'laity' only hear the voice of the so-called 'priesthood'

then they do NOT know Jesus Christ nor are they KNown BY Jesus Christ

and they essentially have Nothing.

the so-called 'priesthood' should, of course, be aware of this
and make this known to 'its' adherents.

you -cannot- have a "Church of God" composed of; "do as i say not as i do"

you -cannot- have a "Church of God" composed of; "watch 'us', and do as 'we' do"

the "Church of God" MUST have the Presence of Christ within each and every one.

and this "Presence" -constitutes- a "personal relationship" inasmuch as God is
a personality and the people are building that character which mimics
God in the flesh.

if you don't like the words; "personal relationship" find some different words,
but, the reality will be essentially the same no matter what words you
find to describe it.

the Mystery...of Christ IN YOU...the hope of glory

> >Jesus says otherwise.

> >Jesus seems to consider the Apostles as His sheep.

> They were his first teachers to guide the sheep.

they were [also] the first of the sheep for whom Christ laid down his life

the Good Shephered who lays down his life for the sheep, as all others
who came before, [and possibly afterwards for some] were as 'hirelings'
and cared not for the sheep.

> He called them to be fishers of men.

great, commendable, but Jesus did -not- call them to fish men out
of the waters of death only to cast them back into a prison of darkness
thereby making worse devils of them than they were before.

please do not take all of this as some sort of affront to your character

i only -wish- the Roman Church would live up to its -stated- potential.

always realizing this, of course, that one may be a Christian,
and not be a Roman Catholic and one may be a Roman Catholic
and also be a Christian, and also, that one may be a Roman Catholic
and -not- be a Christian, and aside from understanding this,
none of it will ever make much sense.

====
Mark 16:17

And these signs will follow those who believe:
In My name they will cast out demons; they
will speak with new tongues;
=
1 Corinthians 14:39

Therefore, brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy,
and do not forbid to speak with tongues.
====

this is obvioulsy not to be constricted to a subset class -of- the Church
but to be encouraged in all who would take the Name of Christ upon themselves.

and this sort of "following" -is- a "personal relationship"

a very deeply personal relationship for many

with direct access to God in the Spirit.

-not- just a lot of 'book knowledge'

etc.

pyracantha

unread,

May 27, 2016, 9:53:42 AM5/27/16

to

duke wrote:

> pyracantha wrote:

> >> "wake up you lazy bum and do some work around the house"
> >> the Buddha's mother

> >> "just remember, you can only eat 32 oz of wurms in a day" [chung]

> >sometimes referred to as; the Diet of Wurms

> How do they taste?

there's an aroma of burning human flesh

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD

unread,

May 28, 2016, 6:11:29 AM5/28/16

to

duke

unread,

May 28, 2016, 7:51:50 AM5/28/16

to

Not much of a chance for that.

pyracantha

unread,

May 28, 2016, 9:29:03 AM5/28/16

to

duke wrote:

> pyracantha wrote:

> >duke wrote:

> >> pyracantha wrote:

> >> >> Again, the answer is no according to Genesis 3:14

> >> >so the Chung dietary plan is not just; "32 oz of food per day"
> >> >32 oz of pop tarts are excluded even though pop tarts
> >> >come in a delicious wide variety.
> >> >"32 oz of food per day" is not a working dietary plan.
> >> >"32 oz of food per day" is just a nonsense tale

> >> I have a friend that professes no more food at a meal than the volume of his fist.
> >> I hope this doesn't mean that you will try to eat your fist.

> >no, but the Count is showing me how to catch spiders and
> >eat them whole so i can attain eternal life...drinking blood

> Not much of a chance for that.

not much chance of you eating my fist either

duke

unread,

May 28, 2016, 11:45:57 AM5/28/16

to

Didn't yo mama teach you not to put your hand in the fire?

duke

unread,

May 28, 2016, 11:58:41 AM5/28/16

to

Then we agree.

>> >what exactly is the problem in calling this a "personal relationship?"

>> It actually results in so many sheep refusing to follow Jesus and his teachings.
>> They seek a "personal relationship" but just don't get it that they're mandated
>> to follow Jesus.

>but Jesus said, [paraphrasing]

>"where i am going you cannot come, But, i will send back Word
>as a Comfort and this Comfort will live inside you and you
>will actually Know The Truth, which I am, and tat Truth will
>make you Free indeed and in truth."

That was 3 years later just before the cross.

>essentially saying that 'we' -cannot- follow Jesus where he is -going-,
>but, that, He will send a Presence that will abide in the 'believer'
>and the Kingdom of God will truly be 'in your midst'

They had the previous 3 years to listen to him.

>this personal Presence of Christ in the believer Is what constitutes "the Church"

A strange comment. The body of Christ are the baptized.

>there should be a billion Saints walking the planet, with a flood of
>the knowledge of God covering the surface as an ocean, together as
>a "Royal Priesthood a holy nation, His own special people,"
>proclaiming the praises of Him who called them out of darkness
>into His marvelous light.

He said "repent of your sins, pick up your own cross daily, and follow me.

>not a worldly empire escorting a 'laity' back into perpetual darknesses
>if you have not the Spirit of God, you are NONE of His...

You don't have the Holy Spirit if not baptized.

>no 'other' intermediate is necessary nor required nor even very useful,
>aside from God's own Presence within the =people= that constitute
>the Church itself.

Christians are the baptized.

>you want to maintain some sense of 'order'? fine
>but, does not your own ope call for a "new evangelisation?'
>well, Evangelization is a GIFT of THE SPIRIT and -not-
>a matter of relaying the learning of men
>and you do not receive GIFTS of THE SPIRIT is you have NOT
>the SPIRIT in the first place.

Nope, if you are not baptized.

>and like it or not, this SPIRIT -in- people constitutes
>a "personal relationship" between God and people.

His Holy Spirit doesn't reside in a dead unbaptized soul.

>and =NOT= simply; "adoration from a distance"
>does that make any sense to you at all?
>the Church in people is not just some political tool whose chief utility

Baptized.

>is to maintain a sense of -worldly- Imperial Order.
>you must realize this to be true.

>otherwise you will forver be defending the excesses of -men-
>and not the Pure Faith which is a tasty treat which you can
>eat 32 million oz of and not quite be filled.

Eat a fistful and no more.

>and not defending "men" who -are- filled with the Holy Ghost, but some men
>who simply 'appear' to be wearing the appropriate attire as a 'cloak for vice'
>but who, in reality, have never known nor been known By Christ.

God knows how many hairs all mankind has on their heads at all times.

>> >do you say that the 'sheep' you help to shepherd,
>> >do not -need- to 'know' the voice of The Shepherd
>> >as long as they recognize -your- voice?
>> Nope. A truly weird question.

>not really wierd, inasmuch as the people -must- access God directly
>through the Spirit of Christ and not through any other sort of
>human intermediary.

There is no such thing as a human intermediary. All man can do is help guide
us as he learned.

>if the so-called 'laity' only hear the voice of the so-called 'priesthood'
>then they do NOT know Jesus Christ nor are they KNown BY Jesus Christ
>and they essentially have Nothing.

A typical protest_er pastor.

>the so-called 'priesthood' should, of course, be aware of this
>and make this known to 'its' adherents.

We know.

>you -cannot- have a "Church of God" composed of; "do as i say not as i do"
>you -cannot- have a "Church of God" composed of; "watch 'us', and do as 'we' do"

Must be as Jesus says and does.

pyracantha

unread,

May 28, 2016, 1:16:22 PM5/28/16

to

i agree with it and i act like i agree with it and it agrees with me.

> >> >what exactly is the problem in calling this a "personal relationship?"

> >> It actually results in so many sheep refusing to follow Jesus and his teachings.
> >> They seek a "personal relationship" but just don't get it that they're mandated
> >> to follow Jesus.

> >but Jesus said, [paraphrasing]

> >"where i am going you cannot come, But, i will send back Word
> >as a Comfort and this Comfort will live inside you and you

> >will actually Know The Truth, which I am, and that Truth will

> >make you Free indeed and in truth."

> That was 3 years later just before the cross.

when it was said doesn't matter, what was said does matter.

the indwelling of the Holy Spirit constitutes a "personal relationship"

> >essentially saying that 'we' -cannot- follow Jesus where he is -going-,
> >but, that, He will send a Presence that will abide in the 'believer'
> >and the Kingdom of God will truly be 'in your midst'

> They had the previous 3 years to listen to him.

that's nice, they listened to Jesus for years, they had
a "personal relationship" with Christ and even ate with
him and touched him and spoke to him.

even if Jesus says; [speaking to Thomas]

"because you has seen me, you believe, blessed
are those who have not seen, and believe."

doesn't mean that those who believe and have not seen,
do not the same sort of personal relationship that Thomas had,
through their Faith, after all, "Faith" is the substance
of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

if you're not listening to Jesus though Faith and walking with
Jesus through Faith and living with Jesus through Faith, you
may as well say you believe in space aliens, because you can
say you believe in space aliens and never once say you have
spoken with them eaten with them or walked among them.

> >this personal Presence of Christ in the believer Is what constitutes "the Church"

> A strange comment. The body of Christ are the baptized.

that's not enough. haven't many "hereticks" been baptized?

didn't work for them did it...?

> >there should be a billion Saints walking the planet, with a flood of
> >the knowledge of God covering the surface as an ocean, together as
> >a "Royal Priesthood a holy nation, His own special people,"
> >proclaiming the praises of Him who called them out of darkness
> >into His marvelous light.

> He said "repent of your sins, pick up your own cross daily, and follow me.

Jesus -cannot- 'remain' a "stranger" if one is actually "following" him.
and if not a "stranger" then a 'friend' and if a friend, then, personally
involved with. that is a "personal relationship"

one can "follow" the sun around and gaze at the moon following its daily transitioning.

the sun and the moon don't know you are there, Jesus does.

> >not a worldly empire escorting a 'laity' back into perpetual darknesses
> >if you have not the Spirit of God, you are NONE of His...

> You don't have the Holy Spirit if not baptized.

you may not have the Holy Spirit -if- you -are- baptized in water alone.

are there "hereticks" in the Roman Church?

have there ever been "hereticks" in the Roman Church?

> >no 'other' intermediate is necessary nor required nor even very useful,
> >aside from God's own Presence within the =people= that constitute
> >the Church itself.

> Christians are the baptized.

////
Matthew 3:11 ; Luke 3:16

I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance,
but He who is coming after me is mightier than I,
whose sandals I am not worthy to carry.
He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.
\\\\

these are Christians...

> >you want to maintain some sense of 'order'? fine
> >but, does not your own ope call for a "new evangelisation?'
> >well, Evangelization is a GIFT of THE SPIRIT and -not-
> >a matter of relaying the learning of men
> >and you do not receive GIFTS of THE SPIRIT is you have NOT
> >the SPIRIT in the first place.

> Nope, if you are not baptized.

\\\\
Romans 8:9

But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed
the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not
have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His.
////

> >and like it or not, this SPIRIT -in- people constitutes
> >a "personal relationship" between God and people.

> His Holy Spirit doesn't reside in a dead unbaptized soul.

it is the Spirit of God which makes the flesh -alive-

\\\\
Romans 8:11

11 But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you,
He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal
bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.
////

> >and =NOT= simply; "adoration from a distance"
> >does that make any sense to you at all?
> >the Church in people is not just some political tool whose chief utility

> Baptized.

in the Holy Spirit

> >is to maintain a sense of -worldly- Imperial Order.
> >you must realize this to be true.

> >otherwise you will forver be defending the excesses of -men-
> >and not the Pure Faith which is a tasty treat which you can
> >eat 32 million oz of and not quite be filled.

> Eat a fistful and no more.

\\\\
1 Peter 2:3

If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious.
////

a two fisted drinker...

> >and not defending "men" who -are- filled with the Holy Ghost, but some men
> >who simply 'appear' to be wearing the appropriate attire as a 'cloak for vice'
> >but who, in reality, have never known nor been known By Christ.

> God knows how many hairs all mankind has on their heads at all times.

God is not placing a knife in the hands of a man
and pulling the trigger for him, that man
is guilty of his own crimes.

> >> >do you say that the 'sheep' you help to shepherd,
> >> >do not -need- to 'know' the voice of The Shepherd
> >> >as long as they recognize -your- voice?
> >> Nope. A truly weird question.

> >not really wierd, inasmuch as the people -must- access God directly
> >through the Spirit of Christ and not through any other sort of
> >human intermediary.

> There is no such thing as a human intermediary. All man can do is help guide
> us as he learned.

then you must know Christ and be known of him.

if you don't like "personal relationship" use other words,

but the situation will be identical.

> >if the so-called 'laity' only hear the voice of the so-called 'priesthood'
> >then they do NOT know Jesus Christ nor are they KNown BY Jesus Christ
> >and they essentially have Nothing.

> A typical protest_er pastor.

wrong again, i have no need of protesting against Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ is always right and correct.

> >the so-called 'priesthood' should, of course, be aware of this
> >and make this known to 'its' adherents.

> We know.

you know that people -must- know and be known of Christ?

that's nice, personal knowledge of another , and all

that "love' stuff is a 'relationship'

why you fear the words "personal relationship" is beyond me.

> >you -cannot- have a "Church of God" composed of; "do as i say not as i do"
> >you -cannot- have a "Church of God" composed of; "watch 'us', and do as 'we' do"

> Must be as Jesus says and does.

\\\\
Acts 1:5 [the Risen Christ speaking]

For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be
baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.
////

baptism with the Holy Ghost constitutes a "personal relationship"

you're combatting windmills...

pyracantha

unread,

May 28, 2016, 1:23:49 PM5/28/16

to

duke wrote:

> pyracantha wrote:

> > duke wrote:

> >> pyracantha wrote:

> >> >> "wake up you lazy bum and do some work around the house"
> >> >> the Buddha's mother

> >> >> "just remember, you can only eat 32 oz of wurms in a day" [chung]

> >> > sometimes referred to as; the Diet of Wurms

> >> How do they taste?

> > there's an aroma of burning human flesh

> Didn't yo mama teach you not to put your hand in the fire?

i'll gladly take my Love into the Fire

\\\\
1 Corinthians 13:3

And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor,
and though I give my body to be burned,
and have not Love, it profiteth me nothing.
////

some people's "good works" profit them not at all...

figured you should be aware of that.

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD

unread,

May 29, 2016, 1:38:18 AM5/29/16

to

unread,

May 29, 2016, 10:02:20 AM5/29/16

to

I suggest you wait for his concurrence. There are a lot of fake sheep out there
that are due for a rude awakening..

>
>
>> >> >what exactly is the problem in calling this a "personal relationship?"
>
>> >> It actually results in so many sheep refusing to follow Jesus and his teachings.
>> >> They seek a "personal relationship" but just don't get it that they're mandated
>> >> to follow Jesus.
>
>> >but Jesus said, [paraphrasing]
>
>> >"where i am going you cannot come, But, i will send back Word
>> >as a Comfort and this Comfort will live inside you and you
>> >will actually Know The Truth, which I am, and that Truth will
>> >make you Free indeed and in truth."
>
>> That was 3 years later just before the cross.

>when it was said doesn't matter, what was said does matter.

When he said it, he was advising and demonstrating to his disciples 3 years
before the cross what being a Christian is. He gave us our marching orders in
repenting of our sins, picking up our own cross and following him. He alone is
our judge regardless of what we think. However, a deal giveaway is an
assessment in success in following him in this world.

Here's a good approximate assessment of what he taught us:

MASS:
Do this in memory of me - Mat 26:26-29, Mark 14:22-26, Luke 22:14-20,
1Cor 11:23-25 (11-34).

SACRAMENTS:
1. Baptism - John 3:5-6, Mat 28:19, Hebrew 2:14-15
2. Holy Eucharist -Mat 26:26-29, Mark 14:22-26, Luke 22:14-20,
1Cor 11:23-25 (11-34).
3. Confession - John 20:22-23, 2 Cor 5:18-19, Mat 9:2-8
4. Matrimony - Mat 19:4-6, Mark 10:5-9, Ephesians 5:31
5. Confirmation - Ephesians 1:13-14, Acts 8:14-17, Acts 19:5-6,
6. Holy Orders - Acts 13:3 & 14:23, John 20:22, 1 & 2 Tim
7. Anointing of the Sick - Mark 6:12-13, John 5:14

PAPACY:
Mat 16:13-19 (Pope), Mat 28:16-20 (Teaching), Eph 2:19-20 (Base)

PURGATORY:
1 Cor 3:10-15

FAITH (without deeds is dead faith):
Mat 25:31-46, James 2:26
Feed the hungry.
Clothe the naked.
Give drink to the thirsty.
Visit the imprisoned.

Heal the sick.
Cast out demons.

>the indwelling of the Holy Spirit constitutes a "personal relationship"

The Holy Spirit, who guides us, fully calls for our participation in the above
works + others. As scripture says, the Holy Spirit comes us to in Baptism.

If you don't follow Jesus, you don't follow his Spirit which comes directly form
the Son.

>> >essentially saying that 'we' -cannot- follow Jesus where he is -going-,
>> >but, that, He will send a Presence that will abide in the 'believer'
>> >and the Kingdom of God will truly be 'in your midst'

>> They had the previous 3 years to listen to him.

>that's nice, they listened to Jesus for years, they had
>a "personal relationship" with Christ and even ate with
>him and touched him and spoke to him.

That's a personal relationship with your next door neighbor, not the Son of God.
With the Son of God, you don't get to say "let's call it off today".

>even if Jesus says; [speaking to Thomas]

>"because you has seen me, you believe, blessed
>are those who have not seen, and believe."
>
>doesn't mean that those who believe and have not seen,
>do not the same sort of personal relationship that Thomas had,
>through their Faith, after all, "Faith" is the substance
>of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

And especially dead if not fulfilled in actions.

James 2:26New International Version (NIV)
26 As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.

>if you're not listening to Jesus though Faith and walking with
>Jesus through Faith and living with Jesus through Faith, you
>may as well say you believe in space aliens, because you can
>say you believe in space aliens and never once say you have
>spoken with them eaten with them or walked among them.

And faith not fulfilled in deeds is dead faith.

>> >this personal Presence of Christ in the believer Is what constitutes "the Church"
>> A strange comment. The body of Christ are the baptized.

>that's not enough. haven't many "hereticks" been baptized?

Only the baptized can be heretics. We become Christians in joining the Body of
Christ in Baptism.

>didn't work for them did it...?

Actually it worked perfectly.

Hebrews 10:26-27New International Version (NIV)
26 If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of
the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 27 but only a fearful expectation of
judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God.

>> >there should be a billion Saints walking the planet, with a flood of
>> >the knowledge of God covering the surface as an ocean, together as
>> >a "Royal Priesthood a holy nation, His own special people,"
>> >proclaiming the praises of Him who called them out of darkness
>> >into His marvelous light.
>
>> He said "repent of your sins, pick up your own cross daily, and follow me.

>Jesus -cannot- 'remain' a "stranger" if one is actually "following" him.
>and if not a "stranger" then a 'friend' and if a friend, then, personally
>involved with. that is a "personal relationship"

"Personal Relationship" is not found in scripture. Following Jesus is.

>one can "follow" the sun around and gaze at the moon following its daily transitioning.
>the sun and the moon don't know you are there, Jesus does.

>> >not a worldly empire escorting a 'laity' back into perpetual darknesses
>> >if you have not the Spirit of God, you are NONE of His...
>
>> You don't have the Holy Spirit if not baptized.
>you may not have the Holy Spirit -if- you -are- baptized in water alone.

We join the Body of Christ (become Christians) in baptism. For the infant, it's
at the decision of the parents just as starting school is. In the adult, it's a
personal decision **TO** follow Jesus, to become a Christian.

>are there "hereticks" in the Roman Church?

By the millions, probably. And the key point is: Only Jesus knows where he
draws the line. Of course, "heretic" technically means to redefine the words of
Jesus. Such was the case of the Inquisitions. Heb 10:26-27 catches those
that live contrary to what Jesus said.

>have there ever been "hereticks" in the Roman Church?

>> >no 'other' intermediate is necessary nor required nor even very useful,
>> >aside from God's own Presence within the =people= that constitute
>> >the Church itself.

>> Christians are the baptized.

>////
>Matthew 3:11 ; Luke 3:16
>
>I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance,
>but He who is coming after me is mightier than I,
>whose sandals I am not worthy to carry.
>He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.
>\\\\

>these are Christians...

And as demonstrated by Jesus in the Jordan, he was baptized by John the Baptist
coupled/followed with the descent of the Holy Spirit. So really it's a two-fold
event. There was no Christian baptism until after the cross.

>> >you want to maintain some sense of 'order'? fine
>> >but, does not your own ope call for a "new evangelisation?'
>> >well, Evangelization is a GIFT of THE SPIRIT and -not-
>> >a matter of relaying the learning of men
>> >and you do not receive GIFTS of THE SPIRIT is you have NOT
>> >the SPIRIT in the first place.
>
>> Nope, if you are not baptized.
>
>
>\\\\
>Romans 8:9
>
>But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed
>the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not
>have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His.
>////

That's right.

>> >and like it or not, this SPIRIT -in- people constitutes
>> >a "personal relationship" between God and people.
>> His Holy Spirit doesn't reside in a dead unbaptized soul.

>it is the Spirit of God which makes the flesh -alive-

The Spirit of God and the Holy Spirit are not one and the same. God's spirit
was active before the cross. The Holy Spirit teaches what he received form
Jesus.

>\\\\
>Romans 8:11
>
>11 But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you,
>He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal
>bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.
>////

>> >and =NOT= simply; "adoration from a distance"
>> >does that make any sense to you at all?
>> >the Church in people is not just some political tool whose chief utility

>> Baptized.
>in the Holy Spirit

Part and parcel with JtB's baptism in water.

>> >and not defending "men" who -are- filled with the Holy Ghost, but some men
>> >who simply 'appear' to be wearing the appropriate attire as a 'cloak for vice'
>> >but who, in reality, have never known nor been known By Christ.

>> God knows how many hairs all mankind has on their heads at all times.

>God is not placing a knife in the hands of a man
>and pulling the trigger for him, that man
>is guilty of his own crimes.

Exactly, and many were baptized. They failed to live up to it.

>> >> >do you say that the 'sheep' you help to shepherd,
>> >> >do not -need- to 'know' the voice of The Shepherd
>> >> >as long as they recognize -your- voice?
>> >> Nope. A truly weird question.

>> >not really wierd, inasmuch as the people -must- access God directly
>> >through the Spirit of Christ and not through any other sort of
>> >human intermediary.

>> There is no such thing as a human intermediary. All man can do is help guide
>> us as he learned.

>then you must know Christ and be known of him.

It all boils down to if you follow him. Few protest_ants follow his teachings.

>if you don't like "personal relationship" use other words,
>but the situation will be identical.

Follow Jesus - a) repent of your sins and b) pick up your own cross daily. You
ever wonder what b) means. His was total love and giving, but never getting.

>> >if the so-called 'laity' only hear the voice of the so-called 'priesthood'
>> >then they do NOT know Jesus Christ nor are they KNown BY Jesus Christ
>> >and they essentially have Nothing.
>
>> A typical protest_er pastor.

>wrong again, i have no need of protesting against Jesus Christ.
>Jesus Christ is always right and correct.

Are you a protest_ant? Did you not wonder what the root of the word means?

>> >the so-called 'priesthood' should, of course, be aware of this
>> >and make this known to 'its' adherents.
>
>> We know.

>you know that people -must- know and be known of Christ?

I don't know what your "priest" would be.

>
>that's nice, personal knowledge of another , and all

1 Peter 2:9 New International Version
But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's special
possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of
darkness into his wonderful light.

A "royal priesthood" and a man that made Vows to God in Holy Orders are two
different things.

We who are baptized, I sure, would be the royal priesthood. But we're not
ordained Priests.

>that "love' stuff is a 'relationship'
>why you fear the words "personal relationship" is beyond me.

It's heavily used by protest_ants who do not follow the huge majority of the
teachings of Jesus.

>
>
>
>> >you -cannot- have a "Church of God" composed of; "do as i say not as i do"
>> >you -cannot- have a "Church of God" composed of; "watch 'us', and do as 'we' do"
>
>> Must be as Jesus says and does.
>
>\\\\
>Acts 1:5 [the Risen Christ speaking]
>
>For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be
>baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.
>////
>
>baptism with the Holy Ghost constitutes a "personal relationship"
>
>you're combatting windmills...
>
>

pyracantha

unread,

May 29, 2016, 2:03:11 PM5/29/16

to

Duke said;

> >> His Holy Spirit doesn't reside in a dead unbaptized soul.

<...>

Duke said;

> He gave us our marching orders in repenting of our sins, picking up our own cross
> and following him. He alone is our judge regardless of what we think. However,
> a deal giveaway is an assessment in success in following him in this world.

i said;

> >God is not placing a knife in the hands of a man
> >and pulling the trigger for him, that man
> >is guilty of his own crimes.

Duke said;

> Exactly. and many were baptized. They failed to live up to it.

<...>

i said;

> >are there "hereticks" in the Roman Church?

Duke said;

> By the millions, probably. And the key point is: Only Jesus knows where he draws the line.

<...>

> Only the baptized can be heretics.

<...>

> We become Christians in joining the Body of Christ in Baptism.

> As scripture says, the Holy Spirit comes us to in Baptism.

so, basically, you are telling me, that, it's all a crapshoot and
all one such as yourself can do is hope you're number comes up.

you basically say that one such as yourself can try to follow but never succeed.
you basically say that baptism must be done to one such as yourself, but
that it assures nothing at all from God.

you sort of imply that the Holy Spirit guides some people into heresy,

but, that, a baptized person can simply fail.

Duke said;

> There are a lot of fake sheep out there that are due for a rude awakening...

essentially you seem to feel that everyone who names Christ is a fake sheep.

i don't say you speak for the Roman Catholic Church, i say you speak for Duke.

but what Duke says is convoluted nonsense that no novice should take seriously.

he seems to be suggesting that water baptism gives all people eternal life,
but that, for most, it is an eternity in a bad place, and for next to none,
it may be an eternity in some good place.

he seems to be;

"you must TRY to follow Christ but you -never- succeed"

he discounts just about any sort of supernatural empowerment
from God aside from God laying down tracks that cannot be followed.

thios is the same sort of "rigged game" nonsense that
those wholly opposed to YHWH God would espouse.

Duke is nine millimeters away from saying; "YHWH is a demon"

why don't you just come right out and say this Duke?

after all, according to you, didn't Jesus simply come
and take over and replace YHWH with some "new" God?
"-your-" God?

i'm not eating that ...

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD

unread,

May 30, 2016, 4:29:03 AM5/30/16

to

pyracantha

unread,

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD

Cure*-*

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD

ADA*-*

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD

Rod

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD

ADA*--*

Rod

ADA*-*

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD

ra...@val.com

ADA*-*

ADA*-*

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD

Francher

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD

ADA*-*

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD

some guy

%

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD

pyracantha

pyracantha

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD

pyracantha

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD

pyracantha

%

pyracantha

Maya Zuiderweg

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD

pyracantha

pyracantha

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD

pyracantha

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD

pyracantha

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD

pyracantha

%

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD

pyracantha

pyracantha

pyracantha

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD

pyracantha

%

pyracantha

duke

pyracantha

duke

duke

pyracantha

%

duke

duke

pyracantha

pyracantha

Maya Zuiderweg

duke

duke

pyracantha

pyracantha

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD

pyracantha

pyracantha

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD

duke

pyracantha

duke

Cure-

ADA-

ADA--

ADA-

ADA-

ADA-

ADA-