Re: How to Become a Christian, Version 1.01

From: Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD (nospam6_at_heartmdphd.com)
Date: 02/17/05 

Date: 17 Feb 2005 04:54:05 -0800

Again, Lord Christ teaches from Matthew 5:

11Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say
all kinds of evil against you because of me. 12Rejoice and be glad,
because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they
persecuted the prophets who were before you.

May God add His blessings to the writing of His Word here on Usenet, in
Christ's holy name.

Amen.

Would suggest you also visit the following link:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?A2642108A

You will remain 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 unimaginable 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:
> Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > Bob (this one) wrote:
> >
> >>Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Bob (this one) wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Bob (this one) wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>"Bob (this one)" wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Andrew B. Chung wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>Simply consider the following decision tree:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>First, learn what a decision tree is.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>That is what the following is.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Looks like your education about this is equal to your "skill"
with
> >>>>>>Everest research, nutrition, geological information, caloric
usage and
> >>>>>>biblical interpretation. A "decision tree" with only two
options is
> >>>>>>not a tree.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Actually, it is the simplest tree.
> >>>>
> >>>>Actually, it's a downscale version of Pascal's Wager, distorted
to
> >>>>glorify your madness. And, while it does involve decision, it's
not a
> >>>>tree. It's merely a binary, and based as it is on your wacky
vision of
> >>>>Christianity, is essentially a null set given the utter lack of
> >>>>support you offer for it.
> >>>
> >>>It remains a simple decision tree.
> >>
> >>It seems that you're unable to read what actual scholars and
> >>scientists consider them to be. No news. Here's a quick overview
that
> >>should help a normal person understand. I hold out no such hope for
> >>you. <http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newTED_04.htm> They
even
> >>show a picture of one to help you grasp what would normally be an
easy
> >>idea for someone able to read. Note that a tree has branches. Your
> >>simpleton binary doesn't. No nodes, no secondary  alternates, no
> >>provable premises. No weights, no variables.
> >>
> >>It's either-or. No tree. Dichotomy. More like a couple of weeds
> >>struggling to exist than a tree.
> >
> > If it weren't, there would be no need for you to cut it from your
post.\
>
> If you weren't a crack-brained crank, there would be no need for you
> to put it in your post.
>
> > It is a tree just as a man is a tree even though he has only two
arms (a
> > left one and a right one).
>
> <LOL> Precisely. Just as a man is a tree your loony zero-sum game is
a
> tree. And MU_llet is the queen of Romania.
>
>
> > This tree has two choices (a right one and a wrong one):
>
> <LOL> Good of you to telegraph it like that. Fuckwit.
>
> > (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 purpose of the cross is to remind us of this decision tree.
>
> The cross is a former tree. A previous tree. A prior tree. It is no
> longer a tree any more than your crackpot two mutually exclusive
> choices represent a tree. Fool. <LOL>
>
> >>>>But that notwithstanding, it would be illustrative for you to
expound
> >>>>on that evidence you say exists for a global flood. A citation
would
> >>>>be good. Or some online reference for everyone to become as
convinced
> >>>>as you. Or is this another of your "discernments" about "truth"
that
> >>>>has no support?
> >>>
> >>>If you review *all* my posts via Google, you will find the answer
that
> >>>you claim to seek.
> >>
> >><LOL> Sure. The first refuge of the faker. "I already said that and
> >>it's up to you to go find it." You grow more demented and drunken
in
> >>your own hubris ever day. <LOLOL> Review *all* your posts...
> >>
> >>Translation from Chunglish to English. "There is no proof. I may or
> >>may not have cited some other wacko fundie crank who offers the
same
> >>sort of hysterical nonsense I do. And I don't want to have to
endure
> >>any sort of actual science that would utterly refute it. Again."
> >
> > It seems you have not learned the lesson than Don Kirkman has since
> > learned.
>
> It seems that you're full of *** and go to great lengths to prove it
> anew each day. No proof from you means no proof. Period. Stick that
up
> your anticline. <LOL> Geological proof from the same sources that
> assert your "gift" of "truth discernment" with the same amount and
> quality of "proof."
>
> Another empty assertion - the same old one - from the fraud Chung
> about his "gift."
>
> >>>>>But then again, most have started to realize that you seem to
hate
> >>>>>simple things.
> >>>>
> >>>>I don't hate anything.
> >>>
> >>>What you claim is discordant with how you act.
> >>
> >><LOL> It's Dr. Cognitive Dissonance himself.
> >>
> >>What you judge proves you to be a liar. No news. And for you to
claim
> >>that you love people while obviously setting out to denigrate,
> >>belittle and try to injure them gives the further lie to your
> >>fraudulent pious actions.
> >
> > Glad you are not denying what is true.
>
> I am *asserting* what is true. That you are a liar. That you falsely
> claim to love people. That you are "setting out to denigrate,
belittle
> and try to injure them."  That you perform an endless variety of
> "fraudulent pious actions." Truths all.
>
> Thank you for acknowledging them and my truthfulness.
>
> Are you so drunken with your own self-worship that you've lost all
> capacity to read?
>
> >>>>I dismiss *simplistic* things and *simpletons*
> >>>>and lo and behold... you fall into both categories with your
pious
> >>>>mouthings and your efforts to reduce the complexities of life to
> >>>>aphorisms and slippery evasions.
> >>>
> >>>Don't you hate MU?
> >>
> >>I laugh at MU. How can anyone hate a floppy-shoed clown who
flounces
> >>and struts to no avail? It's like hating Goofy or Barney Fife?
Equally
> >>fictional characters. MU_shroom deserves nothing so strong as hate.
> >
> > Back to mushrooms again?
> >
> >>>MU is a *two*-letter word :-)
> >>
> >>MU gets suffixes so it spells out the entire truth. Like MU_x. Or
MU_sty.
> >
> > Speaks to your aversion to simplicity.
>
> Speaks to my attraction to the truth, even if it's slightly more
> complex than you can cope with easily.
>
> > Do you despise yourself because you only have two arms ?
>
> <LOL> What a perfectly insane question.
>
> > (Please note that God made this special link describing that He is
the
> > great "I am" and that His message is as simple as the number 2 :-)
> 
> Funny. I think of you as number 2. Always have. <LOL>
> 
> Bob
Quantcast