Just something for many of you to think about.



On 14 Sep 2003 07:00:04 -0700, [email protected] (M. Schwartz) wrote:

>> >Mel, still trying to figure out why He said My God, my God, why has
>> >thou forsaken me.
>>
>> Again, not reported as His Words in every account.
>
>So, what's that supposed to mean?

Just what it says. Not every Biblical account has Christ saying "My
God, my God, why has thou forsaken me." The Latin translations alone
is in dispute; the very fact He said anything like this is in dispute.

>There is a version where He is
>speared and there is a version where spearing isn't mentioned. We have
>four people telling the story but none of them were really there.

This also is disputed but I have a tendency to agree with you.

> The
>accounts of Jesus' crucifixation as told by Mark, Matthew, Luke, and
>John are from other sources and that is probably why the accounts
>differ in some events. Did the earth part? Was he speared? Depends on
>who is telling the story. But what does it mean? The words of man? The
>words of different people relating the story to Mark, Matthew, Luke,
>and John?

It means that your Faith had best be in good order.

>And, we still have My God, my God, why has thou forsaken me? Who was
>he talking to?

To The Father. I always took this to mean He was showing His human
side wondering, under great duress, why He was chosen to suffer so.

I have, at times, when I have suffered terribly, wondered the same
myself.

Why me?
 
Man Over The M_un <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On 14 Sep 2003 07:00:04 -0700, [email protected] (M. Schwartz) wrote:
>
> >> >Mel, still trying to figure out why He said My God, my God, why has
> >> >thou forsaken me.
> >>
> >> Again, not reported as His Words in every account.
> >
> >So, what's that supposed to mean?
>
> Just what it says. Not every Biblical account has Christ saying "My
> God, my God, why has thou forsaken me." The Latin translations alone
> is in dispute; the very fact He said anything like this is in dispute.
>
> >There is a version where He is
> >speared and there is a version where spearing isn't mentioned. We have
> >four people telling the story but none of them were really there.
>
> This also is disputed but I have a tendency to agree with you.
>
> > The
> >accounts of Jesus' crucifixation as told by Mark, Matthew, Luke, and
> >John are from other sources and that is probably why the accounts
> >differ in some events. Did the earth part? Was he speared? Depends on
> >who is telling the story. But what does it mean? The words of man? The
> >words of different people relating the story to Mark, Matthew, Luke,
> >and John?
>
> It means that your Faith had best be in good order.
>
> >And, we still have My God, my God, why has thou forsaken me? Who was
> >he talking to?
>
> To The Father. I always took this to mean He was showing His human
> side wondering, under great duress, why He was chosen to suffer so.
>
> I have, at times, when I have suffered terribly, wondered the same
> myself.
>
> Why me?

Hmmm. Somehow I can't equate why me with what He said. There is a
theory proposed by a biblical scholar who claims My God, my God, why
has thou forsaken me? is in calling for someone pre-arranged to come
and give him a drug to make him appear as if dead. Yes, I know this is
contrary to what you believe. The point is we don't really know the
why but we can speculate what is logical. Yes, logical doesn't always
mean correct.

It appears on the surface Jesus was calling to God to either save him
or take him. Supposedly, Jesus knew what was going to happen and did
nothing to stop it. He actually encouraged it one could say by telling
Judas to do what has to be done. Now, amid all that the disciples saw
Him do, they still had their doubts by all accounts. Why? Yes, they
were human. But they knew of his "miracles" and yet, they doubted Him
in the end. Were they both weak of faith and stupid? I mean, if you
know of someone healing lepers, making the blind see, and walking on
water among other amazing things, how could you doubt Him? They had
all that and still were not true believers. So, how could anyone today
be blamed for not believing when we don't have anything near as strong
as the disciples.

Now let's get to the actual writings. How many years after the
crucifixation did Mark, Matthew Luke, and John write their accounts? I
think the earliest writing was about 30 years later. I think writing
an account of events that took place over 30 years ago is quite
difficult and can present many errors in details.

Why did they all write it in Greek rather than Hebrew or Aramaic? What
provoked them to write it so many years after the event? Is what they
tell us true?

Let's take Isaiah 7:14

Did not at least one Gospel account refer to Isaiah 7:14 that Jesus
fulfilled the prophecy? Was that prophecy really fulfilled? Let's take
a look at that prophecy:

Isaiah (Lord talking through Isaiah) talks to king Ahaz and asks him
to ask for a sign. King Ahaz declines and says I will not ask, neither
will I try the Lord. 7:14 Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a
sign: behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and
shall call his name Immanuel.

This appears to be God talking through Isaiah asking king Ahaz for a
sign but Ahaz declines and so God talking through Isaiah gives a sign
for? King Ahaz! Nothing here to indicate this "sign" was to occur 700
years later.

The symbolic name Immanuel may have been the important thing for Ahaz.
The young woman may have been the wife of king Ahaz or a woman of the
Royal Family. I don't see anything here to indicate a sign for things
to come 700 years later.

In the Gospel accounts where it is said that Mary gave birth to a
virgin and other "historical" information about Jesus' birth - how did
Mark, Matthew, Luke, or John know? Were they there when Jesus was
born? Who told them what happened? They certainly don't tell us who
told them. Questions, questions, and more questions.

Mel, still very confused...
 
Of the previous I am quite sure , but :

I will venture to GUESS , in that case it is probably just a waste of time ?
( TIME , which we all have a finite amount of until life comes to an end )

Tim

"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> tim kettring wrote:
>
> > The definition of the word " Crazy " is doing the same thing over and
> > over , and expecting a different result !!!
> >
> > Tim
> >
>
> Interesting definition.
>
> What if no results are expected?
 
On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 14:45:26 -0400, Man On The M_un wrote:

> On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 10:01:12 -0400, Fencer <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>>That's right ... and Christians have been among the worse offenders.
>>>
>>> Opinion.
>>
>>Are you saying that Christians have NOT been among the worse
>>offenders? So, what is your "opinion"?
>
> My opinion is that there is no way to determine whether your
> statement is correct or not. NO way for you to do so either.
>
> Opinion.

Your opinion flys in the face of well documented, historical truths. Surely
you are familiar with the Christian Crusades? What about the Spanish
Inquisition? The Klu Klux Klan? Jonestown? What about Paul Hill? Jim Baker?
How about Paul Shanley and Francis DeBaradinis? The list goes on and on.

Here's Pascal's quote again (because I know how much you like it):
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from
religious conviction."
 
On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 12:27:29 -0400, "Diana" <(H)(U)(G)(S)> wrote:

>yeah well took it back off and I can go on with this till I am a
>hundred. I am not Mack but you must not have noticed.

Works for me until Mack stops TROLLING SCM>
 
On 14 Sep 2003 16:30:06 -0700, [email protected] (M. Schwartz) wrote:

> There is a
>theory proposed by a biblical scholar who claims My God, my God, why
>has thou forsaken me? is in calling for someone pre-arranged to come
>and give him a drug to make him appear as if dead. Yes, I know this is
>contrary to what you believe. The point is we don't really know the
>why but we can speculate what is logical. Yes, logical doesn't always
>mean correct.

I see that this phrase bothers you. I don't place any great importance
on it.

>It appears on the surface Jesus was calling to God to either save him
>or take him. Supposedly, Jesus knew what was going to happen and did
>nothing to stop it.

If and when He did are up for debate.

> He actually encouraged it one could say by telling
>Judas to do what has to be done. Now, amid all that the disciples saw
>Him do, they still had their doubts by all accounts. Why?

You have to admit, raising from the dead for the salvation of the
world is a bit of a leap of faith regardless of previous miracles.

> Yes, they
>were human. But they knew of his "miracles" and yet, they doubted Him
>in the end. Were they both weak of faith and stupid?

Probably.

> I mean, if you
>know of someone healing lepers, making the blind see, and walking on
>water among other amazing things, how could you doubt Him? They had
>all that and still were not true believers. So, how could anyone today
>be blamed for not believing when we don't have anything near as strong
>as the disciples.

See above.

I have to stop right here. Biblical scholars disagree, run around in
circles over these questions, all legitimate ones.

Point is, lean on Faith, let the other take care of itself over time.

Not saying you do, but I prefer to keep my God out of the box. All
things are and can be possible.

And I don't sweat the small stuff.

>Now let's get to the actual writings.

<snipped>

>Mel, still very confused...

You're supposed to be.
 
Fencer wrote:

> On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 13:59:56 -0400, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
>
> > Fencer wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 16:34:14 -0400, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> >>
> >>> "Paul E. Lehmann" wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when
> >>>> they do it from religious conviction."
> >>>>
> >>>> - Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
> >>>
> >>> That would depend on the religion. See ****** and the Holocaust.
> >>
> >> That's right ... and Christians have been among the worse offenders.
> >
> > It was doubtful that ****** was Christian.
> >
> > Saying that you are Christian does not make you Christian.
>
> Read Pascal's quote again.

We've since moved on from Pascal.

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/
 
Blue M_un wrote:

> On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 13:02:12 -0500, Guy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >OK Doc, I am still waiting for you to post info in the field you
> >claim to be trained for It is relevant to diabetes. I asked
> >questions. Did I miss the answers. I am a quadruple bypass
> > "victim".
> > Guy
>
> Interesting that after reviling Chung as a Troll and a false
> practioner and a fraud, now you come to his side looking for
> assistance.
>
> Btw, I Xposted this back to SCM since that is the only way Chung will
> see your request.

What is Guy's question, Blue?

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/
 
On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 12:39:55 -0400, "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>What is Guy's question, Blue?

Guy posted:

"OK Doc, I am still waiting for you to post info in the field you
"claim to be trained for It is relevant to diabetes. I asked
"questions. Did I miss the answers. I am a quadruple bypass
" "victim".

Funny how, when Guy needs help, you are no longer a fraud, a quack and
a troll.
 
Bob Pastorio wrote:

> Blue M_un wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 00:37:56 -0400, Bob Pastorio <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>It is laughter. It is consuming, driving, uncontrollable mirth. It is
> >>the reaction to one of the most ironic posts I've ever seen. It is the
> >>laughter of confirmation.
> >
> >
> > It is a TROLL obsessing about TROLLING Chung.
>
> Oh, gee. You cut off the good part. Sounds like what they did to you
> in the hospital when you were born. Left the big piece and the rest is
> history.
>
> Unfortunate history, but still history.
>
> Pastorio

Let's be civil. Didn't you write a while back that barring something
egregrious, you were going to end your obessions. Being called a Troll is
hardly egregious. Simply show you aren't. You may follow my lead (see
below).

FYI Note: I am aware that I am responding to a cross-posted message.
Because the author of the message to which I am responding did not request
that the header be trimmed, I have not trimmed it. If you are upset about
reading this message, a few suggestions:

(1) Yell at Bob Pastorio
(2) Report Bob Pastorio to his ISP
(3) Killfile this thread.
(4) Killfile me.
(5) Read about free speech.

This discussion(s) is related to the 2 pound diet approach (2PD) which is
described completely at:

http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp

Though Dr. Chung invented this approach, he did not initiate the Usenet
discussion(s). His participation in this discussion(s) has been voluntary
and has been conducted in the spirit of community service. His motivation
has been entirely altruistic and has arisen from his religious beliefs as a
Christian. Jesus freely gave of Himself to better the health of folks He
touched:

http://www.heartmdphd.com/healer.asp

From the outset, it has been clear that there are those who are vehemently
opposed to the 2 pound diet approach. They have debated Dr. Chung on every
perceived weakness of the 2 pound diet approach and have lost the argument
soundly at every point:

http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtlossfaqs.asp

These debates are archived on Google in their entirety within this
discussion thread(s).

However, instead of conceding gracefully that they've lost the argument(s),
certain parties have redirected their hatred of the 2 pound diet approach
toward its author. The rationale appears to be "if you can not discredit
the message then try to discredit the messenger."

Initially, these folks accused the messenger of "trolling." A "troll" is
someone who posts under the cloak of anonymity messages with no redeeming
discussion value and with the sole purpose of starting "flame" wars.

These hateful folks lost credibility with this accusation when the following
observations were made:

(1) Dr. Chung has not been posting anonymously.
(2) The 2PD has been on-topic for the Usenet discussion groups hosting the
discussion(s).
(a) Those who are failing low-carbing can dovetail LC with the 2PD to
achieve near-ideal weight.
(b) Obese diabetics improve their blood glucose control when their
weight becomes near-ideal.
(c) For (b) see: http://tinyurl.com/levc
(3) Dr. Chung did not start the discussion(s).
(4) The 2 pound diet approach is 100% free (no profit motive).
(5) Dr. Chung's credentials are real and easily verified on-line (including
jpegs of the actual diplomas).

Full of hatred, frustration, and desperation, certain individuals have tried
to attack Dr. Chung's credentials knowing full well that they were
attempting to libel him. One notable example is Mr. Pastorio:

http://www.heartmdphd.com/libel.asp

When the full light was cast on Mr. Pastorio's libelous statements, the
hateful folks hiding in the darkness of anonymity only hissed louder in
support of their fallen hero.

Fortunately, those who have been following this discussion(s) either
actively or as lurkers can easily dismiss the hisses, for what they are,
using the on-line third-party resources at:

http://www.heartmdphd.com/profile.asp

where Dr. Chung's credentials can be verified many times over and libelous
claims that credentials were bought are easily and summarily debunked.

Moreover, readers need only make the following observations concerning the
anon posters who continue to hiss (ie JC Der Koenig and Mack):

(1) They are anonymous and thus they expect to have no credibility (or
accountability).
(2) They are by their Usenet history courtesy of Google, unsavory
characters.
(3) They have not added anything to the discussion(s) except to deliver
one-sided insults.
(4) They complain about alleged cross-posts from Dr. Chung by cross-posting.

(5) They do not complain about cross-posts from folks who attack the 2PD or
its author.

and conclude that these anon posters deserve only their kill file.

It is my hope that the above brings new readers of this thread up to speed.

It will remain my pleasure to continue the discussion(s) about the 2PD above
the din of hissing from the peanut gallery.


Sincerely,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com
 
"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Fencer wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 13:59:56 -0400, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> >
> > > Fencer wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 16:34:14 -0400, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> "Paul E. Lehmann" wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when
> > >>>> they do it from religious conviction."
> > >>>>
> > >>>> - Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
> > >>>
> > >>> That would depend on the religion. See ****** and the Holocaust.
> > >>
> > >> That's right ... and Christians have been among the worse offenders.
> > >
> > > It was doubtful that ****** was Christian.
> > >
> > > Saying that you are Christian does not make you Christian.
> >
> > Read Pascal's quote again.
>
> We've since moved on from Pascal.
>
> --
> Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Board-Certified Cardiologist

Who is the "We" you mention?
If you mean the human race, then you are badly mistaken.
 
On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 12:28:27 -0400, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:

> Fencer wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 13:59:56 -0400, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
>>
>>> Fencer wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 16:34:14 -0400, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Paul E. Lehmann" wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when
>>>>>> they do it from religious conviction."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
>>>>>
>>>>> That would depend on the religion. See ****** and the Holocaust.
>>>>
>>>> That's right ... and Christians have been among the worse offenders.
>>>
>>> It was doubtful that ****** was Christian.
>>>
>>> Saying that you are Christian does not make you Christian.
>>
>> Read Pascal's quote again.
>
> We've since moved on from Pascal.

You mean you're unable to provide an intelligent retort so you've sidestep
the issue.
 
"M. Schwartz" wrote:

> Blue M_un <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 13:04:53 -0400, "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > >Many were insulted by Jesus' teachings.
> > >
> > >Did Jesus apologize to these folks?
> > >
> > >Didn't think so.
> >
> > Apparently you did not read, when kicking the moneychangres butts
> > around the Temple grounds, Christ said: "Excuse my roughness. May I
> > help you pick up your ill gotten wealth? I don't know what got into
> > Me."
> >
> > lol
> >
> > I am always amazed at the folks who read the Bible and come away with
> > a Christ that is always as meek as a lamb.
>
> Well, you'd have to admit he certainly was no tiger. Wasn't his
> philosophy to turn the other cheek?
>

Such a philosophy is only fully realizable in someone with God's strength.

>
> As for the moneychanger/Temple thing, that was an isolated case
> involving what He saw as a defiant action regarding a house of
> worship. But where did He show an unforgiving nature or violent action
> elsewhere?
>

There is unfathomable strength in the ability to forgive.

>
> Mel, still trying to figure out why He said My God, my God, why has
> thou forsaken me.

If He did not say that, would you be more or less convinced that He actually suffered for our sins?

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/
 
Ted Rosenberg wrote:

> cc'd by email
> Look he IS a quack, and has serious problems

Should be simple to prove if true.

>
> BUT he, or someone of the same name IS a board certified Internist (NOT
> cardiologist)

Actually, by board-certification in cardiology is on-line for the world to see on
my web-site.

>
> Just because he ignores facts does not mean that WE should.

Don't ignore facts. Don't make up "facts" either.

You have my pity for your obsessions (http://www.heartmdphd.com/stalking.asp).


FYI Note: I am aware that I am responding to a cross-posted message. Because the
author of the message to which I am responding did not request that the header be
trimmed, I have not trimmed it. If you are upset about reading this message, a
few suggestions:

(1) Yell at Ted Rosenberg
(2) Report Ted Rosenberg to his ISP
(3) Killfile this thread.
(4) Killfile me.
(5) Read about free speech.

This discussion(s) is related to the 2 pound diet approach (2PD) which is
described completely at:

http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp

Though Dr. Chung invented this approach, he did not initiate the Usenet
discussion(s). His participation in this discussion(s) has been voluntary and has
been conducted in the spirit of community service. His motivation has been
entirely altruistic and has arisen from his religious beliefs as a Christian.
Jesus freely gave of Himself to better the health of folks He touched:

http://www.heartmdphd.com/healer.asp

From the outset, it has been clear that there are those who are vehemently opposed
to the 2 pound diet approach. They have debated Dr. Chung on every perceived
weakness of the 2 pound diet approach and have lost the argument soundly at every
point:

http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtlossfaqs.asp

These debates are archived on Google in their entirety within this discussion
thread(s).

However, instead of conceding gracefully that they've lost the argument(s),
certain parties have redirected their hatred of the 2 pound diet approach toward
its author. The rationale appears to be "if you can not discredit the message
then try to discredit the messenger."

Initially, these folks accused the messenger of "trolling." A "troll" is someone
who posts under the cloak of anonymity messages with no redeeming discussion value
and with the sole purpose of starting "flame" wars.

These hateful folks lost credibility with this accusation when the following
observations were made:

(1) Dr. Chung has not been posting anonymously.
(2) The 2PD has been on-topic for the Usenet discussion groups hosting the
discussion(s).
(a) Those who are failing low-carbing can dovetail LC with the 2PD to achieve
near-ideal weight.
(b) Obese diabetics improve their blood glucose control when their weight
becomes near-ideal.
(c) For (b) see: http://tinyurl.com/levc
(3) Dr. Chung did not start the discussion(s).
(4) The 2 pound diet approach is 100% free (no profit motive).
(5) Dr. Chung's credentials are real and easily verified on-line (including jpegs
of the actual diplomas).

Full of hatred, frustration, and desperation, certain individuals have tried to
attack Dr. Chung's credentials knowing full well that they were attempting to
libel him. One notable example is Mr. Pastorio:

http://www.heartmdphd.com/libel.asp

When the full light was cast on Mr. Pastorio's libelous statements, the hateful
folks hiding in the darkness of anonymity only hissed louder in support of their
fallen hero.

Fortunately, those who have been following this discussion(s) either actively or
as lurkers can easily dismiss the hisses, for what they are, using the on-line
third-party resources at:

http://www.heartmdphd.com/profile.asp

where Dr. Chung's credentials can be verified many times over and libelous claims
that credentials were bought are easily and summarily debunked.

Moreover, readers need only make the following observations concerning the anon
posters who continue to hiss (ie JC Der Koenig and Mack):

(1) They are anonymous and thus they expect to have no credibility (or
accountability).
(2) They are by their Usenet history courtesy of Google, unsavory characters.
(3) They have not added anything to the discussion(s) except to deliver one-sided
insults.
(4) They complain about alleged cross-posts from Dr. Chung by cross-posting.
(5) They do not complain about cross-posts from folks who attack the 2PD or its
author.

and conclude that these anon posters deserve only their kill file.

It is my hope that the above brings new readers of this thread up to speed.

It will remain my pleasure to continue the discussion(s) about the 2PD above the
din of hissing from the peanut gallery.


Sincerely,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com
 
Ted Rosenberg wrote:

> Any twit too stupid to use the internet properly should not pretend to
> have a degree in computer science.
>
> Now THERE is one faked credential!
>
> If you want to check board certification LOOK IT UP dummy.

He has already and knows the truth. Now it is your turn. Truth hurts the
untruthful.

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/
 
On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 13:50:17 -0400, "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Ted Rosenberg wrote:
>
>> Any twit too stupid to use the internet properly should not pretend to
>> have a degree in computer science.
>>
>> Now THERE is one faked credential!
>>
>> If you want to check board certification LOOK IT UP dummy.
>
>He has already and knows the truth. Now it is your turn. Truth hurts the
>untruthful.

http://www.heartmdphd.com/rip.asp
 
Carol Frilegh wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, Ted Rosenberg
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Any twit too stupid to use the internet properly should not pretend to
> > have a degree in computer science.
> >
> Like those who continue to crosspst the Chung saga to groups that have
> no interest. twits who can't trim headers?

Carol,

If you want Ted to see your message, you'll need to post to
alt.support.diabetes.

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/
 
"M. Schwartz" wrote:

> [email protected] (Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > [email protected] (M. Schwartz) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > > Blue M_un <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > > > On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 13:04:53 -0400, "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
> > > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >Many were insulted by Jesus' teachings.
> > > > >
> > > > >Did Jesus apologize to these folks?
> > > > >
> > > > >Didn't think so.
> > > >
> > > > Apparently you did not read, when kicking the moneychangres butts
> > > > around the Temple grounds, Christ said: "Excuse my roughness. May I
> > > > help you pick up your ill gotten wealth? I don't know what got into
> > > > Me."
> > > >
> > > > lol
> > > >
> > > > I am always amazed at the folks who read the Bible and come away with
> > > > a Christ that is always as meek as a lamb.
> > >
> > > Well, you'd have to admit he certainly was no tiger. Wasn't his
> > > philosophy to turn the other cheek?
> > >
> > > As for the moneychanger/Temple thing, that was an isolated case
> > > involving what He saw as a defiant action regarding a house of
> > > worship. But where did He show an unforgiving nature or violent action
> > > elsewhere?
> > >
> > > Mel, still trying to figure out why He said My God, my God, why has
> > > thou forsaken me.
> >
> > God only knows.
> >
> > He was in the throes of death at the time.
>
> Yes, but who was He talking to?
>
> Mel, still wondering...

God the Father.

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/
 
"M. Schwartz" wrote:

> [email protected] (Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > [email protected] (M. Schwartz) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > > [email protected] (Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > > > [email protected] (M. Schwartz) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > > > > "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > > > > > "M. Schwartz" wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I had a quadruple bypass in 1998. The LVEF artery was only 35% blocked
> > > > > > > but they also did that one.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > LVEF artery? Which one is that?
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm reading it from the Hospital's report sent to my family physician.
> > > > > It says:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Cardiac Catheterization Report: LAD-90% proximal - 75% mid 1/3,
> > > > > CX-95%, RCA-90%; LVEF-35%"
> > > > >
> > > > > I assumed incorrectly LVEF was an artery. How does the above translate
> > > > > into 4 arteries?
> > > >
> > > > It doesn't. It does translate to 4 blockages which would lead to 4
> > > > bypass grafts. The LVEF refers to Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction.
> > > > LVEF of greater than 50% would be normal. 35% indicates weaker
> > > > function.
> > > >
> > > > > I see on another page: The LAD, DX2, OM1, and RCA vessels are
> > > > > mentioned without specific information regarding the percentage of
> > > > > blockage.
> > > >
> > > > Those would be the "targets" for bypass grafts that would circumvent
> > > > the blockages.
> > > >
> > > > Hope the above clears things up for you.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Andrew
> > >
> > > So, they did a quadruple bypass but only three arteries were affected?
> > > Sorry, but I am trying to understand what was done.
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> >
> > > The LVEF of 35% was before the bypass. After the operation, my LVEF
> > > was 50%.
> > >
> > > Mel
> >
> > Sounds like you needed the surgery.
>
> No question about that. In fact, at the hospital, I was given a choice
> of going home with medication or doing the bypass. Needless to say, I
> chose the bypass.
>
> I was going for my usual walks and felt a certain coldness while
> breathing in that I attributed to the cold weather. A few days later I
> felt a continuous pain in my left upper chest area and the next day I
> called my family physician.
>
> I was told to come in and pick up a form for a blood test and chest
> x-ray. I insisted on being seen by the doctor but they said the doctor
> said to have the blood test and chest x-ray and make an appointment
> for two weeks. I again insisted that I be seen by the doctor and they
> finally relented and said I could come in. I had an EKG which showed
> an abnormal reading and was sent to the hospital where another EKG was
> taken and again an abnormal reading. I was tranferred to another
> hospital better suited for heart problems. I had an angiogram and the
> blocked arteries were discovered. I was told there was no heart damage
> and did not have a heart attack, but, had I waited two weeks I likely
> would have been dead.
>
> I asked my family physician why he suggested I take a blood test and
> chest x-ray and see him in two weeks rather than having me come in,
> and his answer was he thought I was having some muscular problem.
> Needless to say, he was dismissed as my family physician.
>
> Mel, lucky to be alive

Don't believe in luck. It is God's will that you remain alive.

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/
 
tim kettring wrote:

> Of the previous I am quite sure , but :
>
> I will venture to GUESS , in that case it is probably just a waste of time ?
> ( TIME , which we all have a finite amount of until life comes to an end )

Macros running in the background don't take up any of my time.

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back