Re: The World Hears Owd, But Not Me.

1 view
Skip to first unread message

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD

unread,
Oct 7, 2006, 1:15:49 PM10/7/06
to
TheGreatPumpkin wrote:
> Randy wrote:
> > Thank you for confirming that again. There you have it, folks, from
> > the mouth of the "world" itself. Pangur Ban is, by his own words "of
> > the world", and does "not need the bible". He found Owd's theology on
> > conjugal relationships a "pleasure to read", and said mine was
> > "wrong". The world "hears" Owd, but not me.
>
> Maybe that's because you are operating in the flesh rather than in the
> Spirit of God.

Actually, Kumar who is of this world, "hears" Randy (and Dave) fine and
believes that their "survival of the fittest" doctrine is right by
Nature:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.christnet.christianlife/msg/ae3db98ff6a1f4a0?

> It's the Holy Spirit you should hope people hear, not
> you.

Without GOD's love in our hearts, there can be no guidance from the
Holy Spirit.

Most assuredly, without doubt, Randy does not have GOD's love in his
heart:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/e228ba1692acce5c?

> It's Jesus you should hope people see, not you.

When the LORD's Day of Judgment happens, it is Jesus who we hope our
heavenly Father sees in us to stay HIS wrath:

http://HeartMDPhD.com/Christ.asp

> > Owd's theology about conjugal relationships fails this simple test God
> > gave to discern the spirit of truth and error, while mine did not.
>
> WHOSE theology? How about being concerned that the theology you preach
> here is God's rather than YOURS.
>
> If you'd give up your own desires, your own pride for a while you'd
> give others a chance to hear what GOD has to say - not what Randy has
> to say. What you have to say is of no consequence; what the Lord has
> to say has an eternal consequence.

Agree.

May GOD continue to heal our hearts with HIS living water:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/a77da2d26da0ab97?

Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love,

Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung
Cardiologist, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit

As for knowing who are the very elect, these you will know by the
unconditional love they have for everyone including their enemies
(Matthew 5:44-45, 1 Corinthians 13:3, James 2:14-17).

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD

unread,
Oct 7, 2006, 3:12:12 PM10/7/06
to
Randy wrote:
> Andrew wrote:
>
> >Actually, Kumar, who is most assuredly without doubt, of this world,
> >subscribes to your "survival of the fittest" theology:
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.christnet.christianlife/msg/ae3db98ff6a1f4a0?
>
> [Which says:
> > Whether forceful sex or sex with vigour or uncontrolled sex is sin or
> > natural mechanism for "survival of fittest"? If so, how it can be
> > against nature/GOD?
>]
>
> No, he does not, and I do not proclaim a "survival of the fittest"
> theology.

Such is your interpretation of 1 Corinthians 7:1-9 given by the
following written exchange:

Glenn asked--

"If your wife wishes to abstain from sex for a period of prayer and
fasting, and YOU do _NOT_ give YOUR consent, DO YOU HAVE THE GOD-GIVEN
RIGHT TO HAVE SEX WITH HER?"

Randy replied --

"Yes, according to 1 Cor. 7:1-9..."

**** End excerpt of written exchange ****

> That is the lie you and others are falsely trying to impute
> to what the Bible and I say.

It remains my choice to continue to write truthfully and to receive the
guidance of the Holy Spirit in everything I say, do, and write.

Who counsels you in your interpretation of the Bible?

> He is apparently endorsing forced sex,
> and you are implying that agrees with what I teach. This is a lie.

Having intercourse with your wife against her will is forced sex or
spousal rape.

> He does not subscribe to what I have said the Bible means, but to the
> perversion of what I said, that *you* and others are falsely trying to
> impute, i.e. that the right to due benevolence is one and the same
> with the right to force it, which is nowhere implied or necessitated
> in the right to what is "due". *You* and others are the only ones who
> keep bringing up and confusing the concept of forced sex, with the
> legitimate, God given right to "due" benevolence.

"Spousal rape is sin." -- Holy Spirit

Amen.

> For example, if you have the right to be paid by a patient, and they
> say "no", does that suddenly mean their bill is no longer "due", just
> because they decided they didn't want to pay you?

Actually, the bill is sent electronically to a insurance clearinghouse.

> No, it does not.
> You still have the right to what is "due", whether they say no or not.
> But just because you have the right to what is "due", does that
> therefore necessitate you endorse beating up your patients to get your
> money if they don't do it voluntarily? No, it does not.

It does not surprise me that you would equate a woman's love with
money. When a woman is receptive during intercourse with a man, she is
giving her love to this man in hopes of receiving his love in return.
Women are often disappointed when the only thing they receive in return
is semen.

A woman's love is hers to give and not for you to take. It remains
GOD' infinite will that all souls retain HIS generous gift of free will
even when they happen to become married to someone who does not believe
in free will. Indeed, though husbands are commanded to love their
wives as Christ loves HIS assembly, wives are not commanded to
reciprocate much less to even start.

Similarly, GOD's love is for HIM to give to those who truly know HIS
Son well enough to ask HIM in prayer:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/a77da2d26da0ab97?

Once you ask our LORD for a drink of HIS living water, you would put
down your sword and love your wife as a woman should be loved.

May GOD continue to keep your heart beating to give you enough time to
understand this, dear neighbor Randy whom I love unconditionally.

Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love,

Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung
Cardiologist, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit

As for knowing who are the very elect, these you will know by the
unconditional love they have for everyone including their enemies
(Matthew 5:44-45, 1 Corinthians 13:3, James 2:14-17).

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/a77da2d26da0ab97?

Randy

unread,
Oct 7, 2006, 4:43:18 PM10/7/06
to
On 7 Oct 2006 12:12:12 -0700,
in article <1160248332....@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,

"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <lo...@thetruth.com> wrote:

>Glenn asked--
>
>"If your wife wishes to abstain from sex for a period of prayer and
>fasting, and YOU do _NOT_ give YOUR consent, DO YOU HAVE THE GOD-GIVEN
>RIGHT TO HAVE SEX WITH HER?"
>
>Randy replied --
>
>"Yes, according to 1 Cor. 7:1-9..."
>
>**** End excerpt of written exchange ****
>
>> That is the lie you and others are falsely trying to impute
>> to what the Bible and I say.
>
>It remains my choice to continue to write truthfully and to receive the
>guidance of the Holy Spirit in everything I say, do, and write.


Why do you continue to imply that the God given right to have sex
necessarily implies either the intent or act of forcing sex against
the will, and cut out the other half of my sentence, in which I said I
do not endorse forced sex? I believe it is because you are a
shameless liar.

The right to due benevolence, to which I said "yes", both spouses have
this right, does *not* necessarily imply either the intent or act of
forced sex, other than in the sick minds of a few people who are hell
bent on imputing their own invented lies to others.


--
Christ died for our sins, and God raised Him from the dead.
Rely on this work alone to escape hell and receive eternal
life (Jn. 3:16; 1 Cor. 15:1-3; Eph. 2:8-10; 2 Thess. 1:8-9).

Randy

unread,
Oct 7, 2006, 4:46:28 PM10/7/06
to
On 7 Oct 2006 10:15:49 -0700,
in article <1160241349.1...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,

"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <lo...@thetruth.com> wrote:

This is the same lame response you tried last time, which was soundly
refuted, and which you did not even attempt to respond to.

>TheGreatPumpkin wrote:
>> Randy wrote:
>> > Thank you for confirming that again. There you have it, folks, from
>> > the mouth of the "world" itself. Pangur Ban is, by his own words "of
>> > the world", and does "not need the bible". He found Owd's theology on
>> > conjugal relationships a "pleasure to read", and said mine was
>> > "wrong". The world "hears" Owd, but not me.
>>
>> Maybe that's because you are operating in the flesh rather than in the
>> Spirit of God.
>
>Actually, Kumar who is of this world, "hears" Randy (and Dave) fine and
>believes that their "survival of the fittest" doctrine is right by
>Nature:
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.christnet.christianlife/msg/ae3db98ff6a1f4a0?

[Which says:
> Whether forceful sex or sex with vigour or uncontrolled sex is sin or
> natural mechanism for "survival of fittest"? If so, how it can be
> against nature/GOD?

]

No, he does not, and I do not proclaim a "survival of the fittest"

theology. That is the lie you and others are falsely trying to impute
to what the Bible and I say. He is apparently endorsing forced sex,


and you are implying that agrees with what I teach. This is a lie.

He does not subscribe to what I have said the Bible means, but to the


perversion of what I said, that *you* and others are falsely trying to
impute, i.e. that the right to due benevolence is one and the same
with the right to force it, which is nowhere implied or necessitated
in the right to what is "due". *You* and others are the only ones who
keep bringing up and confusing the concept of forced sex, with the
legitimate, God given right to "due" benevolence.

For example, if you have the right to be paid by a patient, and they


say "no", does that suddenly mean their bill is no longer "due", just

because they decided they didn't want to pay you? No, it does not.


You still have the right to what is "due", whether they say no or not.
But just because you have the right to what is "due", does that
therefore necessitate you endorse beating up your patients to get your
money if they don't do it voluntarily? No, it does not.

If I did to you, what a few of you people are trying to do to what the
Bible and I have been saying, it would go something like this:

So, Dr. Chung, when you render medical service, and your patient says
"no", they don't want to pay you, is their bill still "due"?

If you then said "'yes, it is still due whether they say 'no' or not,
but I do not endorse taking it by force'", and then I immediately went
around publishing:

"Dr. Chung endorses taking money from patients by force!"
"Dr. Chung practices survival of the fittest in taking patient's
money!"

Would that be an honest representation of what you said? No, it would
not. It would appear as what it is, a deliberate misrepresentation
and lie. Yet that's what a few of you people keep claiming about what
the Bible and I have been saying, when you try to infer that claiming
the right of both spouses to "due benevolence", and not to be
"defrauded" by the other, automatically means we endorse the right to
forced sex.

You people deliberately pretend the right to what is "due",
automatically implies both the intention and act of forcing payment
against a person's wishes, cut out the part where I plainly say I do
not endorse forced sex, then publish that I am teaching force sex and
survival of the fittest. Your lie is obvious and shameless.

--

Randy

unread,
Oct 7, 2006, 4:53:45 PM10/7/06
to
On 7 Oct 2006 12:12:12 -0700,
in article <1160248332....@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,

"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <lo...@thetruth.com> wrote:

And I said it was wrong, and you cut that part out of the same
sentence in which you quoted me saying "yes". Why?

Why do you continue to try to confuse people into thinking the only
possible outcome of the right to have due benevolence is that the
husband then takes that right by force, against the wife's wishes? I
be live it's because you need to impute a lie to what I actually said,
in order to fool stupid people for your own political support.

Neither Owd, nor you asked me if I endorsed taking due benevolence by
force, which I already said was wrong. What you asked, and what you
keep quoting, as if it's proof I agreed to rape, is an agreement that
a spouse has the right to "due" benevolence, even if his spouse
attempts to "defraud" (1 Cor. 7:4-5) him of that right, which
defrauding is sin. The fact he or she has the right to due
benevolence does NOT imply or necessitate forcing that right against
the spouses wishes, other than in your sick attempts to impute this
lie as my motive.

But hey, please ignore this, cut it out of your reply, and get
whatever political support you can rally with your lies!

oldwetdog

unread,
Oct 7, 2006, 7:01:19 PM10/7/06
to

repost
-----------------------

www.pulpitfire.org wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 16:42:35 -0700,
> in article <12i5tbg...@corp.supernews.com>,
> oldwetdog <g.aed...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Tell us ALL, Randy: Tell us ONE MORE TIME, AGAIN!!


>
>> If your wife wishes to abstain from sex for a period of prayer and
>> fasting, and YOU do _NOT_ give YOUR consent, DO YOU HAVE THE
>> GOD-GIVEN RIGHT TO HAVE SEX WITH HER?
>

> Yes,

All the illogic, sophistry, avoidance and self justification you typed
AFTER the word "yes" doe NOT CHANGE THE MEANING of your answer.

> according to 1 Cor. 7:1-9, but that doesn't mean I endorse
> forcing it against her will. If she didn't render it, she'd be the
> one sinning (defrauding), not me, but I would not force it either.
>
>> THAT *IS* what you have been claiming, right?
>
> Do you think you will shame me into your politically correct,
> sock-puppet theology Owd? Can you find the word "rape" anywhere in
> the Bible? Can you demonstrate, from the Bible, where any man was
> ever accused or found guilty of having unlawful sex with his wife? If
> not, why? When did the laws about "raping" your wife come into
> existence, Owd? Did God's will change with modern law and thinking?
> Why do you try to shame people away from what the Bible teaches, to
> conform to modern, professional victim, sock-puppet ideology?
>
>> Regardless of all your "exegesis" and Logic and arguments and big
>> words THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE CLAIMING!!
>
> Yes? Are you jealous? Do you think you will shame me into being a
> politically correct sock-puppet theologian like yourself?
>

You have now admitted that you either engage in or espouse of justify or
advocate spousal rape.

end repost
----------

Randy, you just got through saying YOU HAVE THE GOD-GIVEN RIGHT TO HAVE
SEX WITH HER!

Saying you have (any husband has) the "RIGHT" *IS* to excuse or justify
or advocate and promote spousal rape.


HOW, oh magnificent liar, can you say it is "wrong" or that you wouldn't
do it, AFTER YOU CLAIM THE GOD-GIVEN RIGHT????

Randy

unread,
Oct 7, 2006, 8:15:38 PM10/7/06
to
On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 16:01:19 -0700,
in article <12igce2...@corp.supernews.com>,
oldwetdog <g.aed...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>HOW, oh magnificent liar, can you say it is "wrong" or that you wouldn't
>do it, AFTER YOU CLAIM THE GOD-GIVEN RIGHT????

And there it is folks. Who is the sicky who implies the right to have
something necessarily means you have the right to take it by force,
and actually would do that against your spouses wishes? Owd does.
Thanks for admitting it publicly, Owd.

Ros

unread,
Oct 8, 2006, 6:45:02 AM10/8/06
to

Me think you doth protest too much.

Ros

Message has been deleted

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD

unread,
Oct 8, 2006, 8:08:10 AM10/8/06
to
Randy wrote:

> Andrew wrote:
>
> >Glenn asked--
> >
> >"If your wife wishes to abstain from sex for a period of prayer and
> >fasting, and YOU do _NOT_ give YOUR consent, DO YOU HAVE THE GOD-GIVEN
> >RIGHT TO HAVE SEX WITH HER?"
> >
> >Randy replied --
> >
> >"Yes, according to 1 Cor. 7:1-9..."
> >
> >**** End excerpt of written exchange ****
> >
> >> That is the lie you and others are falsely trying to impute
> >> to what the Bible and I say.
> >
> >It remains my choice to continue to write truthfully and to receive the
> >guidance of the Holy Spirit in everything I say, do, and write.
>
> Why do you continue to imply that the God given right to have sex

In truth, having sex is not a GOD-given right.

The only right that GOD has generously given to all souls, including
those belonging to fig trees (Mark 11:12-14, 20), is HIS generous gift
of free will:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/ddb25eb1d5cf468a?

How can the undiscerning like you know this to be absolutely true?

By groping around with your written logic:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/f0be347662523d91?

And understanding what the Holy Spirit has guided me to write about
souls:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/ddb25eb1d5cf468a?

And witnessing the reaction of the unbelieving world to this Holy
Spirit-guided understanding of GOD putting souls in everything HE
commands:

(1) From Gene Goldman : "Unsurprising, really. Mr. Chung is every bit
as much a Christian as he is a doctor, equally knowledgeable about both
topics."

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/a4bdae15eaecb0b8?

(2) From Jeff Utz: "In Mark 11:12-14,20, Jesus cursed a fig tree and it
dried up. It said
nothing about souls. I am not going to question how much knowledge
Chung has about either subject. IMHO, his understanding of both
subjects is lacking."

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/066c16f40743bb30?

(3) From Charlotte Blackmer: "Yes, the idea is rather animist, is it
not?... My sincere apologies to ASD for forgetting to trim the xpost -
trimmed in followups. (Set to auk only, where Chungianity is actually
on topic.) "

Speaking of AUK, that is where I have experienced the usenet equivalent
of crucifixion during my walk with Christ Jesus:

http://www.netcabal.com/auk/kookle.php?search=chung

This is the cross that the world has given me to carry in my ever
closer walk with HIM. May GOD continue to receive the glory for every
cross-post the Holy Spirit guides me to make to AUK for as long as our
LORD is willing.

Laus Deo ! !

Marana tha ! ! !

The world fears the Holy Spirit so much, that it has tried many times
to convince everyone that those guided by HIM are not Christians but
animists as you have witnessed in Charlotte above and in orthodox
religionists:

"Nothing, but the newly invented doctrine is not saying this but mixing
a doctrine of pagan animism with a private interpretation without
reference to the orthodox teachings of 2000 years."

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/2090dc3ae3320333?

In truth, believing in GOD the Holy Spirit has been labelled animism by
the world:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.christnet.christianlife/msg/4d67a12483d85b22?

In spirit, having intercourse with your wife against her will is forced
sex or
spousal rape.

"Spousal rape is sin." -- Holy Spirit

Amen.

When a woman is receptive during intercourse with a man, she is giving


her love to this man in hopes of receiving his love in return. Women
are often disappointed when the only thing they receive in return is

semen. This was the case for the Samaritan woman by Jacob's well who
had been looking for love in all the wrong places (5 husbands and
countless paramours) receiving only semen and not love as Jesus and all
HIS brethren (those who have drank of HIS living water) are able to
give (John 4:10-18). We, the brethren of Christ Jesus, are lovers of
souls. We are the soul-mates that people of this world seek.

A woman's love is hers to give and does not belong to you to be taken
by you as you will. It remains GOD' infinite will that all souls
retain HIS generous gift of free will even when they are married to


someone who does not believe in free will. Indeed, though husbands are
commanded to love their wives as Christ loves HIS assembly, wives are
not commanded to reciprocate much less to even start.

Similarly, GOD's love is for HIM to give to those who truly know HIS
Son well enough to ask HIM in prayer:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/a77da2d26da0ab97?


Once you ask our LORD for a drink of HIS living water and receive HIS
living water, you will put away your sword and love your wife as a

Randy

unread,
Oct 8, 2006, 9:15:50 AM10/8/06
to
On 8 Oct 2006 05:08:10 -0700,
in article <1160309290.3...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,

"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <lo...@thetruth.com> wrote:

>In truth, having sex is not a GOD-given right.

Thanks for admitting you don't believe the Bible, when it says to
"render" (imperative voice) "due" benevolence. Now you claim someone
doesn't have a right to what is "due".

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD

unread,
Oct 8, 2006, 12:48:51 PM10/8/06
to
Randy wrote:

> Andrew wrote:
>
> >In truth, having sex is not a GOD-given right.
>
> Thanks for admitting you don't believe the Bible

You are not the Bible. It is my hope that your depressed wife learns
this if she does not know already because this likely would speed up
her recovery.

Our heavenly Father's will be done and not our will:

http://tinyurl.com/rtsya

May GOD continue to keep your heart beating till you understand this,


dear neighbor Randy whom I love unconditionally.

Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love,

Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung
Cardiologist, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit

As for knowing who are the very elect, these you will know by the
unconditional love they have for everyone including their enemies
(Matthew 5:44-45, 1 Corinthians 13:3, James 2:14-17).

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/f4dad7fe68478acf?

Charlotte L. Blackmer

unread,
Oct 8, 2006, 2:23:56 PM10/8/06
to
In article <1160309290.3...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD <lo...@thetruth.com> wrote:

>The only right that GOD has generously given to all souls, including
>those belonging to fig trees (Mark 11:12-14, 20), is HIS generous gift
>of free will:

Mark doesn't say that fig trees have souls.

>(3) From Charlotte Blackmer: "Yes, the idea is rather animist, is it
>not?... My sincere apologies to ASD for forgetting to trim the xpost -
>trimmed in followups. (Set to auk only, where Chungianity is actually
>on topic.) "
>
>Speaking of AUK, that is where I have experienced the usenet equivalent
>of crucifixion during my walk with Christ Jesus:
>
>http://www.netcabal.com/auk/kookle.php?search=chung

For repeatedly comparing mild usenet point-and-snicker that has had no
effect on his RL (which, had he the self-control that God gave a goose,
he could easily walk away from) to the sacrifice of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus
Christ unto painful death on the cross, I hereby nominate Andrew Chung for
the "Darth Bawl" award.

Seconds?

>The world fears the Holy Spirit so much, that it has tried many times
>to convince everyone that those guided by HIM are not Christians but
>animists

I used the a-word because you claimed that fig trees have souls.

You do have an interesting collection of nutbars arguing with you: Mark T
looks like an Arian (denying the divinity of Christ) and there's that
chappie claiming the essenes were it for early Christianity.

>as you have witnessed in Charlotte above and in orthodox
>religionists:

You say "orthodox" like it's a BAD thing ;).

Yes, not ascribing souls to plants is an orthodox tenet of Judaism and
Christianity.

>"Nothing, but the newly invented doctrine is not saying this but mixing
>a doctrine of pagan animism with a private interpretation without
>reference to the orthodox teachings of 2000 years."

... but is a central tenet of orthodox Christianity.

Charlotte
--

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD

unread,
Oct 8, 2006, 3:32:36 PM10/8/06
to
Charlotte L. Blackmer wrote:

> Andrew wrote:
>
> >The only right that GOD has generously given to all souls, including
> >those belonging to fig trees (Mark 11:12-14, 20), is HIS generous gift
> >of free will:
>
> Mark doesn't say that fig trees have souls.

This is an understanding from the Holy Spirit after observing that the
fig tree did not just die but was withered to its roots.

> >(3) From Charlotte Blackmer: "Yes, the idea is rather animist, is it
> >not?... My sincere apologies to ASD for forgetting to trim the xpost -
> >trimmed in followups. (Set to auk only, where Chungianity is actually
> >on topic.) "
> >
> >Speaking of AUK, that is where I have experienced the usenet equivalent
> >of crucifixion during my walk with Christ Jesus:
> >
> >http://www.netcabal.com/auk/kookle.php?search=chung
>
> For repeatedly comparing mild usenet point-and-snicker

It is a bit more than that:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/79712e9f968eaaf9?

> that has had no
> effect on his RL (which, had he the self-control that God gave a goose,
> he could easily walk away from)

(It remains my choice to continue walking with Christ Jesus rather than
walking away from HIM)

> to the sacrifice of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus
> Christ unto painful death on the cross, I hereby nominate Andrew Chung for
> the "Darth Bawl" award.

You remind me of the recently cited excerpt from Hebrews 6:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/69745084d64ad6d9?

> Seconds?

In the Holy Spirit, I fear nothing of this world.

> >The world fears the Holy Spirit so much, that it has tried many times
> >to convince everyone that those guided by HIM are not Christians but
> >animists
>
> I used the a-word because you claimed that fig trees have souls.

In the Holy Spirit, I know that GOD has given souls to all that HE
commands.

> You do have an interesting collection of nutbars arguing with you: Mark T
> looks like an Arian (denying the divinity of Christ) and there's that
> chappie claiming the essenes were it for early Christianity.

My LORD's purpose for me here remains to inform and not to either argue
or convince.

> >as you have witnessed in Charlotte above and in orthodox
> >religionists:
>
> You say "orthodox" like it's a BAD thing ;).
>
> Yes, not ascribing souls to plants is an orthodox tenet of Judaism and
> Christianity.

You remind me of the following from James 1:26-27...

"If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight
rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless.
Religion that GOD our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to
look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself
from being polluted by the world."

**** End Scriptural citation ****

"Your orthodox religion is worthless." -- Holy Spirit

Amen !

Laus Deo ! !

> >"Nothing, but the newly invented doctrine is not saying this but mixing
> >a doctrine of pagan animism with a private interpretation without
> >reference to the orthodox teachings of 2000 years."
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/2090dc3ae3320333?
> >
> >In truth, believing in GOD the Holy Spirit has been labelled animism by
> >the world:
> >
> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.christnet.christianlife/msg/4d67a12483d85b22?
>
> ... but is a central tenet of orthodox Christianity.

"Your orthodox religion has been rejected by GOD." -- Holy Spirit

Amen !

Laus Deo ! !

Marana tha ! ! !

May GOD continue to keep your heart beating so that you will have time
to understand this, dear neighbor Charlotte whom I love
unconditionally.

Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love,

Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung
Cardiologist, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit

As for knowing who are the very elect, these you will know by the
unconditional love they have for everyone including their enemies
(Matthew 5:44-45, 1 Corinthians 13:3, James 2:14-17).

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/f4dad7fe68478acf?

Art Deco

unread,
Oct 8, 2006, 5:23:01 PM10/8/06
to
Charlotte L. Blackmer <c...@green.rahul.net> wrote:

>In article <1160309290.3...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
>Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD <lo...@thetruth.com> wrote:
>
>>The only right that GOD has generously given to all souls, including
>>those belonging to fig trees (Mark 11:12-14, 20), is HIS generous gift
>>of free will:
>
>Mark doesn't say that fig trees have souls.

Perhaps in the NCV it does say this?


>
>>(3) From Charlotte Blackmer: "Yes, the idea is rather animist, is it
>>not?... My sincere apologies to ASD for forgetting to trim the xpost -
>>trimmed in followups. (Set to auk only, where Chungianity is actually
>>on topic.) "
>>
>>Speaking of AUK, that is where I have experienced the usenet equivalent
>>of crucifixion during my walk with Christ Jesus:
>>
>>http://www.netcabal.com/auk/kookle.php?search=chung

Oh, poor baby, so oppressed he is.


>
>For repeatedly comparing mild usenet point-and-snicker that has had no
>effect on his RL (which, had he the self-control that God gave a goose,
>he could easily walk away from) to the sacrifice of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus
>Christ unto painful death on the cross, I hereby nominate Andrew Chung for
>the "Darth Bawl" award.
>
>Seconds?

Absolutely, Mr. Fraud is seconded.


>
>>The world fears the Holy Spirit so much, that it has tried many times
>>to convince everyone that those guided by HIM are not Christians but
>>animists
>
>I used the a-word because you claimed that fig trees have souls.
>
>You do have an interesting collection of nutbars arguing with you: Mark T
>looks like an Arian (denying the divinity of Christ) and there's that
>chappie claiming the essenes were it for early Christianity.
>
>>as you have witnessed in Charlotte above and in orthodox
>>religionists:
>
>You say "orthodox" like it's a BAD thing ;).
>
>Yes, not ascribing souls to plants is an orthodox tenet of Judaism and
>Christianity.

Where does he get this stuff from?


>
>>"Nothing, but the newly invented doctrine is not saying this but mixing
>>a doctrine of pagan animism with a private interpretation without
>>reference to the orthodox teachings of 2000 years."
>
>>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/2090dc3ae3320333?
>>
>>In truth, believing in GOD the Holy Spirit has been labelled animism by
>>the world:
>>
>>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.christnet.christianlife/msg/4d67a12483d85b2
>>2?
>
>... but is a central tenet of orthodox Christianity.

Funny that Mr. Fraud should toss out a quote containing the phrase
"private interpretation".
>
>Charlotte

--
COOSN-266-06-39716
Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler
Official Overseer of Kooks and Saucerheads in alt.astronomy
Official "Usenet psychopath and born-again LLPOF minion",
as designated by Brad Guth

"Who is "David Tholen", Daedalus? Still suffering from
attribution problems?"
-- Dr. David Tholen

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages