Re: How to Become a Christian, Version 1.01

Discussion in 'Food and nutrition' started by Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD, Feb 17, 2005.

  1. It remains my choice to refrain from judging others.

    This remains the truth though you are unable to discern it.

    However, others now have this "test of time" to grope out the truth for
    themselves.

    Meanwhile, you have remained in my prayers, dear Bob, whom I love, in
    Lord Christ's holy name.

    May you accept Him as your personal Lord and Savior, someday, so that
    you too will have eternal life and the amazing riches of His
    everlasting kingdom.

    Here's how:

    http://makeashorterlink.com/?I22222129

    Please note that God truly made this special link describing that He is
    the great "I am" and that His message is as simple as the number 2
    which is a number between 1 to 9 and reminds us of His 2 commandments,
    the 2 arms of the cross, the 2nd part of the Trinity, the 2 finger sign
    of the Prince of Peace [who remains *V*ictorious over death and satan],
    and the 2PD Approach. Let it not ever be written that Christ did not
    make His presence known here on Usenet :)

    Also, note that Exodus 16:16 continues to remind us that 16 oz plus 16
    oz makes 2 pounds, which is "a certain measure of weight," which is
    what "omer" literally means in Hebrew.

    Enter the 2PD-OMER Approach:

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

    At His service,

    Andrew

    --
    Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
    Board-Certified Cardiologist


    **
    Suggested Reading:
    (1) http://makeashorterlink.com/?L26062048
    (2) http://makeashorterlink.com/?O2F325D1A
    (3) http://makeashorterlink.com/?X1C62661A
    (4) http://makeashorterlink.com/?U1E13130A
    (5) http://makeashorterlink.com/?K6F72510A
    (6) http://makeashorterlink.com/?I24E5151A
    (7) http://makeashorterlink.com/?I22222129

    Bob (this one) wrote:
    > Andrew B. Chung wrote:
    >
    > > "Bob (this one)" <[email protected]> wrote in message

    news:<[email protected]>...
    > >
    > >>Andrew B. Chung wrote:
    > >>
    > >>>"Bob (this one)" <[email protected]> wrote in message

    news:<[email protected]>...
    > >>>
    > >>><snipped --> http://makeashorterlink.com/?Y29152A69>
    > >>>
    > >>>>>He is omnipotent. For the Creator of the universe, directing

    the
    > >>>>>course of history without taking away the free will of

    individuals is
    > >>>>>a trivial undertaking.
    > >>>>
    > >>>>Not even God can reconcile mutually exclusive terms. Either

    actions
    > >>>>were directed or the people had free will. I can accept either

    one
    > >>>>(since there's no proof for either, they're unarguable) but both
    > >>>>cannot co-exist simultaneously.
    > >>>
    > >>><snipped --> http://makeashorterlink.com/?B13425869>
    > >>>
    > >>>Answer: Logic is subordinate to the truth which is God.
    > >>
    > >>This sentence is a void assertion. Still more examples of fallacies

    of
    > >>assumption. No evidence for the existence of God and no evidence

    for
    > >>any relationship with truth. No proof that logic is subordinate to
    > >>anything else. Without those preconditions (and some others), the
    > >>sentence is meaningless. It can only be offered as a statement of
    > >>faith. And even so, it makes no sense. It assumes that God can
    > >>logically be illogical or, bafflingly, alogical or, even more

    strange,
    > >>somehow extra-logical. If that were so, then God could make a rock

    so
    > >>big he couldn't lift it - while lifting it. Not even God can

    reconcile
    > >>mutually exclusive terms.
    > >>
    > >> > Similarly, we have free will given by God but the outcomes of

    our
    > >> willful actions are subordinate to His greater will and plan.
    > >>
    > >>No. This definition of free will being promulgated by this

    assertion
    > >>removes the very element of freedom from behavior that his plan
    > >>dictates. Either we can determine our own fates by our actions or

    we
    > >>can't because "our willful actions are subordinate to His greater

    will
    > >>and plan." If we can't, we don't have free will. Something cannot

    be
    > >>and not be at the same time. Free will *or* God's plan that directs


    > >>us. It's that simple. Not even God can reconcile mutually exclusive


    > >>terms.
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>>Such truths stand without need for any proof.
    > >>
    > >>*No* "truths" stand without proof. Statements are "truths" because
    > >>they've been measured against objective reality. Opinions can stand


    > >>without proof. Faith doesn't demand proof, but then it can't be
    > >>offered as "truth." It's merely a subjective belief.
    > >>
    > >>Such "truths" are your opinion. They aren't Truths because they

    can't
    > >>be tested against any objective standard and they don't hold up

    with
    > >>questioning scrutiny. Your saying that it's what you discern

    doesn't
    > >>make it true. It only makes it your unconfirmed opinion.

    Particularly
    > >>since you haven't offered anything to substantiate the existence of


    > >>the "gift" and, further, that you have it.
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>> Sorry you do not like the truth (shrug).
    > >>
    > >>I don't like faith-based assertions offered as though they were

    facts.
    > >>Truth remains to be seen. And proven. Without proof it's not truth,

    by
    > >>the very definition; it's at best opinion, no matter what unproven
    > >>claims for "discernment" muddy the issues.

    > >
    > > Simply consider the following decision tree:

    >
    > First, learn what a decision tree is. Second, learn the difference
    > between fact and fancy. Third, have the honesty top deal with the
    > words in front of you.
    >
    > > (1) Accept Christ.
    > > Risk: Nothing.
    > >
    > > Benefits: Salvation, purposeful life, eternal life, unimaginable

    riches
    > > in God's eternal kingdom.
    > >
    > > (2) Reject Christ.
    > > Risk: Eternal separation from God. Eternal torment of your soul by
    > > satan.
    > >
    > > Benefits: Nothing.
    > >
    > > One has to conclude that those (ie you, Carey, George, Frank,

    Hawki, Steve,
    > > Don et al) who would reject Christ have not thought out your

    decision
    > > *logically*.

    >
    > Fourth, at least put up the false front of adhering to your own phony


    > "rules" wherein you falsely claim not to judge others. To "conclude"
    > is to go through a line of reasoning. That de facto is judgement.
    >
    > Because people have refused to play your unbalanced mind games

    doesn't
    > mean that they've done what you *imagine* they have. I daresay most
    > people who read your insane rantings see you as a crank not worth
    > engaging and, so, reveal nothing to you that you may use as

    ammunition
    > against them. As you so, so often do.
    >
    > > Truth is simple.

    >
    > Your "truth" is insupportable bullshit. Like these nonsense ravings:
    > > Logic is subordinate to the truth which is God.
    > >> > Similarly, we have free will given by God but the outcomes of

    our
    > >> willful actions are subordinate to His greater will and plan.
    > >>>Such truths stand without need for any proof.
    > >>> Sorry you do not like the truth (shrug).

    > > Truth is simple.

    >
    >
    > It's ever more hilarious how you say that logic is flawed and only
    > faith permits truth and then you backtrack on yourself and now
    > promulgate "logic." Pity that you seem to have surrendered all
    > capacity for it with your unproven premises and assumptions not
    > merited from evidence. If you're going to try to peddle the idea of
    > logic, it would behoove you to make at least a stab at it yourself.
    >
    > Bob
     
    Tags:


Loading...