 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Cardiology / May 2006Possible Human-to-Human Bird Flu in Indonesia
http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/conditions/05/13/indonesia.birdflu.reut/ Local tests have confirmed that three Indonesians from one family who died in the past week had bird flu, a health ministry official said on Saturday. Authorities have sent blood and swab samples of the three people -- a 29-year-old woman, a 19-year-old man and a 35-year-old man -- to a World Health Organization-affiliated laboratory in Hong Kong. Local tests are not considered definitive. A toddler and a 25-year-old man from the same North Sumatra family were also found positive for bird flu, although they are still alive, Nyoman Kandun, a director general at the Indonesian health ministry, told Reuters. "Local tests found five positive cases. They are all related by blood and they live close to each other," said Kandun. He did not say whether they had had any contact with sick fowl, the usual mode of transmission of the virus to humans. WHO has confirmed 25 fatalities from avian influenza in the world's fourth most populous nation so far, the second highest number of human deaths after Vietnam, out of the total death toll of 115 globally. The virus has spread in birds at an alarming rate in recent months, sweeping through parts of Europe, down into Africa and across into South Asia. It is difficult for humans to catch, but experts fear the virus could evolve into a form passed easily from human to human, causing a pandemic that could kill millions. In Indonesia, the H5N1 virus has been reported in birds in about two-thirds of the country's provinces. > http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/conditions/05/13/indonesia.birdflu.reut/ > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > found positive for bird flu, although they are still alive, Nyoman Kandun, a > director general at the Indonesian health ministry, told Reuters. Uh-oh. > "Local tests found five positive cases. They are all related by blood and > they live close to each other," said Kandun. > > He did not say whether they had had any contact with sick fowl, the usual > mode of transmission of the virus to humans. Usually, these folks are quick to report an association with sick birds when there is an association. > WHO has confirmed 25 fatalities from avian influenza in the world's fourth > most populous nation so far, the second highest number of human deaths after [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > into a form passed easily from human to human, causing a pandemic that could > kill millions. Actually, the correct term is mutate instead of "evolve," since viruses are non-living and without speciation. > In Indonesia, the H5N1 virus has been reported in birds in about two-thirds > of the country's provinces. For this reason, the H5N1 virus has plenty of opportunity to mutate per GOD's infinite will. This is dire news for the world as we know it. Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love, Andrew http://tinyurl.com/mpuzr Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD left the following puddlr on the floor of sci.med.cardiology: > viruses > are non-living and without speciation. WTF? > > viruses are non-living and without speciation. > > > WTF? Proof of GOD... ...as Darwin's theory of evolution is blown away because it is built on sand (assumption that Mother Nature exists as chance) which is not a stable foundation to build a theory. Still praying for your soul, dear Hugh. Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love, Andrew http://tinyurl.com/mpuzr > > > viruses are non-living and without speciation. > > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > sand (assumption that Mother Nature exists as chance) which is not a > stable foundation to build a theory. It concerns e that somebody who passes himself off as a doctor has zero comprehension of what science actually is. > > > > viruses are non-living and without speciation. > > > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > It concerns e that somebody who passes himself off as a doctor has zero > comprehension of what science actually is. You remind me of the blind man who would feign vision by questioning the understanding of the seeing concerning matters of vision. Still praying for your soul, dear Hugh. Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love, Andrew http://tinyurl.com/mpuzr > > > > > viruses are non-living and without speciation. > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > You remind me of the blind man who would feign vision by questioning > the understanding of the seeing concerning matters of vision. Still talking to yourself, I discern. > > > > > > viruses are non-living and without speciation. > > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Still talking to yourself, I discern. No. Still writing and posting for others including you, actually. You are still reading these posts, I see. Such is the power of the prayers that keep you reading what the LORD guides me to write. Still praying for your soul, dear neighbor. Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love, Andrew http://tinyurl.com/mpuzr : > > viruses are non-living and without speciation. : > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] : Andrew : http://tinyurl.com/mpuzr All Christians agree (I think) that God created the universe. The disagreement is over how he did it. Currently, Christianity is divided into two warring camps: those who see God as a scientist/engineer and those who see him as a magician. The former have no problem at all with evolution; the latter consider it heresy. Andrew, it seems, falls (unaccountably, IMO, given his background) in this latter group. Sorry, Andrew, but I think you're on the wrong side of this one. But what say you? Can you justify the "God is a magician" viewpoint with more substantive reasoning than just praying for our souls? ;^) I'm serious: we're listening. Forget about the newsgroups's resident atheists. They're not going to accept anything you say anyway, so ignore them for now. You can argue with them later if you construct a good enough case. > : > > viruses are non-living and without speciation. > : > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > camps: those who see God as a scientist/engineer and those who see him as a > magician. There is a third group that knows GOD to be simply LORD GOD Almighty. > The former have no problem at all with evolution; the latter > consider it heresy. Andrew, it seems, falls (unaccountably, IMO, given his > background) in this latter group. Actually, those with discerning hearts belong in the third group. > Sorry, Andrew, but I think you're on the wrong side of this one. But what say > you? What is written above has been written plainly. > Can you justify the "God is a magician" viewpoint with more substantive > reasoning than just praying for our souls? ;^) No, because I do not hold your fabricated viewpoint. Any true scientist who has a genuine understanding of Proverbs 16:33 will feel compelled to reject the theory of evolution. > I'm serious: we're listening. Forget about the newsgroups's resident atheists. > They're not going to accept anything you say anyway, so ignore them for now. They don't bother me. Indeed, their souls remain in my prayers as they remain in the net that the LORD had me use to catch them. > You can argue with them later if you construct a good enough case. The LORD's purpose for me here remains to inform and not to either argue or convince as has been the case for HIS four horsemen who have been galloping about all over the world doing the LORD's work. Will be praying for your soul, dear Robert. Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love, Andrew http://tinyurl.com/jjl29 It seems to me I heard somewhere that Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote in article <1148237189.045936.20910@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>: >> All Christians agree (I think) that God created the universe. The disagreement >> is over how he did it. Currently, Christianity is divided into two warring >> camps: those who see God as a scientist/engineer and those who see him as a >> magician. >There is a third group that knows GOD to be simply LORD GOD Almighty. That kind of "knowledge" does not account for how God acts to create or to guide. >> The former have no problem at all with evolution; the latter >> consider it heresy. Andrew, it seems, falls (unaccountably, IMO, given his >> background) in this latter group. >Actually, those with discerning hearts belong in the third group. >> Sorry, Andrew, but I think you're on the wrong side of this one. But what say >> you? >What is written above has been written plainly. >> Can you justify the "God is a magician" viewpoint with more substantive >> reasoning than just praying for our souls? ;^) >No, because I do not hold your fabricated viewpoint. Any true >scientist who has a genuine understanding of Proverbs 16:33 will feel >compelled to reject the theory of evolution. Having abandoned your training as a true scientist you have only your understanding of Proverbs 16:33 to support you. Since you always pull it out of its context within a book full of wisdom sayings your understanding of the verse is extremely shaky.  SignatureDon Kirkman >It seems to me I heard somewhere that Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote in >article <1148237189.045936.20910@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>: [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >it out of its context within a book full of wisdom sayings your >understanding of the verse is extremely shaky. Proverbs 16:33 "We may throw the dice, but the LORD determines how they fall. " > >It seems to me I heard somewhere that Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote in > >article <1148237189.045936.20910@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>: [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > Proverbs 16:33 "We may throw the dice, but the LORD determines how > they fall. " Amen ! The truth is beautiful. HE is absolute. Absolutely nothing happens by chance but by HIM. Absolutely amazing ! Many thanks to GOD for your being a witness, dear John. Let's keep praying for Don's soul, in Jesus' invincible, infinitely powerful, and most holy name. Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love, Andrew http://tinyurl.com/jjl29 >It seems to me I heard somewhere that Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote in >article <1148237189.045936.20910@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>: [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >it out of its context within a book full of wisdom sayings your >understanding of the verse is extremely shaky. Proverbs 16:33 "We may throw the dice, but the LORD determines how they fall. " New Living Translation. If you're at all familiar with Proverbs then you know that each verse is pretty much stand alone, i.e., no textual context. So....it is not so hard to see what it means. In fact, there's no need for me to attempt a paraphrase. To deny the truth of this verse, you would have to claim that an almighty God cannot influence or determine the fall of a single throw of the dice, i.e., not very almighty. I believe that an almighty God can do anything He wills to be done. Or else you have to argue that maybe He could do it but He wouldn't want to and/or never has done it. Actually, you can't even argue that because it is reported in Acts 1:26 that Judas' replacement was chosen by a throwing of lots, thus allowing God to make His own choice between the candidates. I have previously posted on how we (engineers) know how to construct mathematical sequences that appear to be random but, in fact, are not and that there is no practical way for anyone not in on the secret to discern the pattern. The creator, however, can easily produce any desired bit from the sequence. Following this argument, you can see how difficult it might be for an undiscerning person to see God's hand at work. If you're not in on the secret, then it just looks random to you. Even if something passes all the statistical tests for randomness doesn't mean it is actually random. Species changes can _look_ like evolution without actually _being_ evolution. This is not to say that the study of paleontology is not interesting because it is - very interesting. Some of my best friends are paleontologists. ;-) A paper weight on my desk is a bronze casting of a T-Rex tooth - a gift from a paleontologist friend. BTW, I would use the same argument that an almighty God has no need for suicidal bombers to bring down buildings or make people dead. If He wants a certain building to fall, it will fall without your meddling. Blessings, John : Proverbs 16:33 "We may throw the dice, but the LORD determines how : they fall. " New Living Translation. If you're at all familiar with [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] : actually random. Species changes can _look_ like evolution without : actually _being_ evolution. ... A scientist would say that it's the laws of nature that cause the dice to fall as they do. If he's also a believer, that's OK, because he assumes that God invented the laws of nature. If those laws have a probabilistic component, that's OK too, because God obviously had the right (and the power) to set them up however he chose. But your words quoted above suggest that you don't accept that argument. You seem to be saying that God has no choice but to micromanage every detail of every event in the universe. To me such a limitation on God's power seems a bit presumptuous, but only from that position can you argue that evolution cannot be a perfectly natural process that works just as scientists say it does. : BTW, I would use the same argument that an almighty God has no need : for suicidal bombers to bring down buildings or make people dead. If : He wants a certain building to fall, it will fall without your : meddling. Here your argument gets in its own way. You're surely not suggesting that God wanted the World Trade towers to be destroyed? (If you are, you're in a very small theological minority.) So why, then, did he let those savages do it? >: Proverbs 16:33 "We may throw the dice, but the LORD determines how >: they fall. " New Living Translation. If you're at all familiar with [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >that's OK too, because God obviously had the right (and the power) to set them >up however he chose. Yes, He created it and He has the power to re-create it anytime He decides. It's what being almighty is all about. Mostly, it seems like He lets it run as originally designed. Have you considered that since He created us, He has had a new tool to use to carry out His Will. He can use ideas. Ideas don't obey any laws of physics that I know about. They don't weigh anything, they don't take up space, once you reveal an idea you can no longer 'possess' it, etc. I believe that God uses ideas to tell us things He wants to be known. Trouble is knowing whether an idea is from God or His enemy. See below. Discernment required. >But your words quoted above suggest that you don't accept that argument. You >seem to be saying that God has no choice but to micromanage every detail of >every event in the universe. To me such a limitation on God's power seems a >bit presumptuous, but only from that position can you argue that evolution >cannot be a perfectly natural process that works just as scientists say it >does. Hmmm.....that is not what I meant at all. Sorry you got that impression. That pseudo-random number generator I describe above runs quite happily on its own until its creator decides to change the polynomial that defines the sequence. Micro-management not required but is possible at any time. Almighty God can decide to 'adjust' the probabilities or just let them run, depending on what His Will happens to be. >: BTW, I would use the same argument that an almighty God has no need >: for suicidal bombers to bring down buildings or make people dead. If [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >wanted the World Trade towers to be destroyed? (If you are, you're in a very >small theological minority.) So why, then, did he let those savages do it? Hardly! The suicidal fanatics claim to be serving Allah but are in fact exercising their own wills in opposition to God/Allah. On the other hand, if God really wants a certain building or whatever to come down then no power on earth could hold it up. Blessings, John > >: Proverbs 16:33 "We may throw the dice, but the LORD determines how > >: they fall. " New Living Translation. If you're at all familiar with [quoted text clipped - 71 lines] > other hand, if God really wants a certain building or whatever to come > down then no power on earth could hold it up. So, God allowed the planes to strike the buildings, and the fires to spread to the extent that people jumped from 100 stories up rather than perish in flames? And then he allowed the buildings to collapse, killing hundreds of would-be rescuers? Why would he allow that? Did he simply not care? Or, was it a case of some form of "divine retribution" for our ostensible sins (as the Pat Robertson's would assert)? If God could have stopped all that with but a thought, why didn't he? If he "loves" us, he sure has a funny way of showing it. Would a parent not save their child from impending doom if they were capable of preventing it? GG > Blessings, > John > > >: Proverbs 16:33 "We may throw the dice, but the LORD determines how > > >: they fall. " New Living Translation. If you're at all familiar with [quoted text clipped - 94 lines] > "loves" us, he sure has a funny way of showing it. Would a parent not save > their child from impending doom if they were capable of preventing it? The answers to all questions like yours are part of all the priceless treasures that are stored up for those who will be spending the rest of eternity with LORD Jesus Christ, Who is the source of all knowledge and wisdom. The beginning of the rest of eternity at the end of the world as we know it may happen at any moment: http://tinyurl.com/rk9m8 Still praying for your soul, dear Gary. Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love, Andrew http://tinyurl.com/jjl29 > > > >: Proverbs 16:33 "We may throw the dice, but the LORD determines how > > > >: they fall. " New Living Translation. If you're at all familiar with [quoted text clipped - 99 lines] > eternity with LORD Jesus Christ, Who is the source of all knowledge and > wisdom. Meaning..."stop asking inconvenient questions...read the Bible and shut up!". > The beginning of the rest of eternity at the end of the world as we > know it may happen at any moment: Or, as is much more likely, the world will continue to go on, and people will continue to be born and die with no "Second Coming" or "End Times" (it's been 2,000 years since your Jesus supposedly said, "I'll be right back"). Your fantasies regarding the "end of the world" and your hysterical predictions of "global earthquakes" and "nuclear exchange", reveal much about your own disturbed mental state. As you've stated, "the truth is simple"...in your case, the truth is you're a nut. Your continued Cross-Posting for Christ do nothing more than illustrate this simple fact to the world at large. GG > http://tinyurl.com/rk6m8 > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Andrew > http://tinyurl.com/jj129 > > > > >: Proverbs 16:33 "We may throw the dice, but the LORD determines how > > > > >: they fall. " New Living Translation. If you're at all familiar [quoted text clipped - 134 lines] > > > > http://tinyurl.com/rk9m8 > Or, as is much more likely, the world will continue to go on, and people > will continue to be born and die with no "Second Coming" or "End Times" [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > a nut. Your continued Cross-Posting for Christ do nothing more than > illustrate this simple fact to the world at large. Name-calling is neither fact nor truth but a tell for those given over to foolishness because of satan's mark on their foreheads. "For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of GOD. For it is written: 'I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.'" (1 Corinthians 1:18-19) Still praying for your soul, dear Gary Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love, Andrew http://tinyurl.com/jjl29 > > > > > >: Proverbs 16:33 "We may throw the dice, but the LORD determines how > > > > > >: they fall. " New Living Translation. If you're at all familiar [quoted text clipped - 150 lines] > Name-calling is neither fact nor truth but a tell for those given over > to foolishness because of satan's mark on their foreheads. Well, I don't believe in your satan, nor the "marks" you seem to imagine on the foreheads of people who don't share your fantasies. As for name-calling...calling you a "nut" or a "kook" could reasonably be characterized as "assessment", given your prolific and bizarre posting history (e.g., predictions of a "global earthquake" and "nuclear exchange"). GG > > Name-calling is neither fact nor truth but a tell for those given over > > to foolishness because of satan's mark on their foreheads. > > Well, I don't believe in your satan, nor the "marks" you seem to imagine on > the foreheads of people who don't share your fantasies. That would be your choice made through the free will that GOD has generously given you. > As for name-calling...calling you a "nut" or a "kook" could reasonably be > characterized as "assessment", given your prolific and bizarre posting > history (e.g., predictions of a "global earthquake" and "nuclear exchange"). It seems you have abandoned all reason in choosing to opine that name-calling is an objective assessment. Moreover, your continued delusion that discussion of possibilities is equivalent to making predictions or prophesying suggests a type of avoidance behavior that borders on being a psychosis. Would suggest that you inform your doctor about the above concerns. The diagnosis that may need to be considered in your case has the ICD code of 309.81. Simply print out this post and take it with you to increase the likelihood that you will receive proper treatment. Still praying for you, dear Gary. Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love, Andrew http://tinyurl.com/jjl29 > > > Name-calling is neither fact nor truth but a tell for those given over > > > to foolishness because of satan's mark on their foreheads. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > code of 309.81. Simply print out this post and take it with you to > increase the likelihood that you will receive proper treatment. Too funny, dear Chungy...your passive-agressive style of expressing your increasing irritation is so predictable though. For the record, I'm not the one who posted hundreds of hysterical warnings about the impending "global earthquake" and the "nuclear exchange" you said were likely to occur on 3/29/2006. A weatherman who warned of the "possiblity of an F5 tornado on 3/29/2006" would be viewed (correctly) as incompetent or delusional if that day passed without a drop of rain or a cloud in the sky. Similarly, your silly "discussion of possibilities" clearly illustrates your incompetence as a "watchman". BTW - does Mrs. Chung share your fascination with the Second Coming? Or, is she still waiting on the first one? GG > Still praying for you, dear Gary. > > Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love, > > Andrew > http://tinyurl.com/jjl29 > > > > Name-calling is neither fact nor truth but a tell for those given over > > > > to foolishness because of satan's mark on their foreheads. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Too funny, dear Chungy... If it were, you would not have been compelled to try to change the subject. Still praying for your soul, dear Gary. Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love, Andrew http://tinyurl.com/jjl29 > > > > > Name-calling is neither fact nor truth but a tell for those given over > > > > > to foolishness because of satan's mark on their foreheads. [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > If it were, you would not have been compelled to try to change the > subject. And if you weren't so dishonest, you wouldn't try to divert attention from your abysmal record as a "watchman"...hundreds of silly warnings about a "global earthquake" and a "nuclear exchange" that you said were likely to occur on 3/29/2006...yet nothing of the sort came to pass. And now, you're fascinated by the prospect of a global bird flu pandemic. Too funny, dear Chungy...your passive-agressive style of expressing your increasing irritation is so predictable though. For the record, I'm not the one who posted hundreds of hysterical warnings about the impending "global earthquake" and the "nuclear exchange" you said were likely to occur on 3/29/2006. A weatherman who warned of the "possiblity of an F5 tornado on 3/29/2006" would be viewed (correctly) as incompetent or delusional if that day passed without a drop of rain or a cloud in the sky. Similarly, your silly "discussion of possibilities" clearly illustrates your incompetence as a "watchman". BTW - does Mrs. Chung share your fascination with the Second Coming? Or, is she still waiting on the first one? GG > > > > > > Name-calling is neither fact nor truth but a tell for those given > over [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > And if you weren't so dishonest, you wouldn't try to divert attention from > your abysmal record as a "watchman"... The performance of a watchman is measured not by the number of "correct" sightings but not missing the one event he is called upon to spot and not miss because of being asleep. And so I remain awake after spotting the eclipse, the earthquake, and watching what looks like a nuclear holocaust brewing in Iran and a pandemic in Indonesia. Still praying for your soul, dear Gary. Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love, Andrew http://tinyurl.com/jjl29 > > > > > > > Name-calling is neither fact nor truth but a tell for those given > > over [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > spotting the eclipse, the earthquake, and watching what looks like a > nuclear holocaust brewing in Iran and a pandemic in Indonesia. I guess you never heard the story of The Boy Who Cried Wolf....if your warnings are wrong enough, often enough, people will ignore you because they'll take you (correctly) for a lunatic or a fool. With your stunning record of failure, and your hysterical and prolific "warnings", you're clearly in this category. With your twisted logic, if you stood in one place on the prairie in Kansas, and warned everyone who passed by for 100 years that there would soon be an F5 tornado, you would consider yourself a good watchman if one finally came along. But, in truth, you'd just be another lunatic. GG > Still praying for your soul, dear Gary. > > Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love, > > Andrew > http://tinyurl.com/jjl29 > > > > > > > "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <nospam2@heartmdphd.com> wrote in > message [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > > I guess you never heard the story of The Boy Who Cried Wolf.... You guess wrongly. The boy was not called to watch. Nonetheless the wolf **did** come. > if your > warnings are wrong enough, often enough, people will ignore you because > they'll take you (correctly) for a lunatic or a fool. There are those who no longer listen to meterologists presumably for this reason. This is the explanation for why the NWS were ignored when they warned New Orleans about Katrina possibly being Cat 5 upon landfall. > With your stunning > record of failure, and your hysterical and prolific "warnings", you're > clearly in this category. Without the LORD, your opinion remains meaningless (Ecclesiastes). > With your twisted logic, if you stood in one place on the prairie in Kansas, > and warned everyone who passed by for 100 years that there would soon be an > F5 tornado, you would consider yourself a good watchman if one finally came > along. But, in truth, you'd just be another lunatic. The warning siren that goes off every time reliably is better than one that goes off only intermittently and only when the neighbors approve. Still praying for your soul, dear Gary. Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love, Andrew http://tinyurl.com/jjl29 > > > > > > > > "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <nospam2@heartmdphd.com> wrote in > > message news:1148554262.740530.147480@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > > Name-calling is neither fact nor truth but a tell for those > > given [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] > > Without the LORD, your opinion remains meaningless (Ecclesiastes). With your LORD, you've made a fool of yourself before a global audience (and continue to do so). > > With your twisted logic, if you stood in one place on the prairie in Kansas, > > and warned everyone who passed by for 100 years that there would soon be an [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The warning siren that goes off every time reliably is better than one > that goes off only intermittently and only when the neighbors approve. The warning siren that goes off every day (like your lunatic predictions for 3/29/2006), is soon recognized as "defective", and thus ignored. Perhaps that's the role that your God has decided is yours to play. > Still praying for your soul, dear Gary. Nobody cares, Andy. GG > Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love, > > Andrew > http://tinyurl.com/jj129 > > > > > > > "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <nospam2@heartmdphd.com> wrote in > message [quoted text clipped - 105 lines] > The warning siren that goes off every day (like your lunatic predictions for > 3/29/2006), is soon recognized as "defective", and thus ignored. 3/29/2006 was only one day. Indeed, the eclipse did happen as predicted. Moreover, the UN Security Council did start things rolling toward a nuclear holocaust in Iran by issuing their ultimatum on 3/29/06 that Iran cease and desist uranium enrichment thereby committing the UN to always find Iran's continued insistence to enrich uranium unacceptable. > Perhaps that's the role that your God has decided is yours to play. The LORD's purpose for me here remains to inform and so you have been though you may certainly choose to ignore the information. > > Still praying for your soul, dear Gary. > > Nobody cares, Andy. The praying is as much for my own benefit as it is for yours. Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love, Andrew http://tinyurl.com/jjl29 Op Fri, 26 May 2006 14:01:44 +0200 schreef Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD <andrew@heartmdphd.com>: >>>>>> "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <nospam2@heartmdphd.com> wrote in >> message [quoted text clipped - 73 lines] > You guess wrongly. The boy was not called to watch. Nonetheless the > wolf **did** come. Oh, but he certainly was. It was his job to watch the sheep and look out for wolves. But the bottom line is that when the wolf was coming and he tried to warn the villagers obody came, because he'd cried Wolf one to many times. >> if your >> warnings are wrong enough, often enough, people will ignore you because [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > The warning siren that goes off every time reliably is better than one > that goes off only intermittently and only when the neighbors approve. What reliable about your warning siren? You were yelling the world was going to end and nothing happened. SignatureHannele aa #2221 > Op Fri, 26 May 2006 14:01:44 +0200 schreef Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD > <andrew@heartmdphd.com>: [quoted text clipped - 77 lines] > > Oh, but he certainly was. A man perhaps but not a mere boy. > It was his job to watch the sheep and look out > for wolves. No. The job of watching the sheep actually belongs to the shepherd. > But the bottom line is that when the wolf was coming and he > tried to warn the villagers obody came, because he'd cried Wolf one to > many times. No. It was because the villagers realized that the boy was a mere boy who was not even related to the shepherd. They came at the call of the boy the first time because of curiosity. > >> if your > >> warnings are wrong enough, often enough, people will ignore you because [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > What reliable about your warning siren? The warning about the possibility of a great earthquake before the solar eclipse predicted by astronomers for 3/29/06 was indeed realized as the magnitude 6 earthquake that occurred an amazing 255 miles below the vicinity of the world's most populous city (Tokyo) the night before the eclipse. You will be in my prayers, dear Hannelle whom I love in Jesus' most exalted and holy name. Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love, Andrew http://tinyurl.com/jjl29 {...} > > What reliable about your warning siren? > > The warning about the possibility of a great earthquake before the > solar eclipse predicted by astronomers And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood; In a solar eclipse, the moon is invisible until it begins to occult the sun. And even then it presents only a silhouette. "The moon became as blood" could be employed as an overly-dramatic description of a lunar eclipse; there is nothing of the sort in a solar eclipse. -- cary > {...} > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > to occult the sun. And even then it presents only a > silhouette. Correct. > "The moon became as blood" could be employed as an overly-dramatic > description of a lunar eclipse; there is nothing of the sort in > a solar eclipse. Correct. The moon may not turn completely blood red until the nuclear fires of a nuclear holocaust start and their light reflects off the moon. Still praying for your soul, dear Cary. Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love, Andrew http://tinyurl.com/jjl29 > > {...} > > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > The moon may not turn completely blood red until the nuclear fires of a > nuclear holocaust start and their light reflects off the moon. Won't happen. The amount of light from any amount of earthly fire would be trivial in comparison to the earthshine due to the Earth's albedo. -- cary > > > {...} > > > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > fire would be trivial in comparison to the earthshine due > to the Earth's albedo. A nuclear fire would be unlike any earthly fire. The entire earth's atmosphere may become ignited. Still praying for your soul, dear Cary. Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love, Andrew http://tinyurl.com/jjl29 > > > > {...} > > > > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > A nuclear fire would be unlike any earthly fire. The entire earth's > atmosphere may become ignited. And then of course there would be no one to see that "the moon became as blood", would there? By the way, as a chemist I am quite curious as to what reactions you have in mind when you talk about igniting the atmosphere. -- cary > > > > > {...} > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > And then of course there would be no one to see that "the moon became > as blood", would there? Those of us with eternal life will be around to serve as witnesses. > By the way, as a chemist I am quite curious as to what reactions > you have in mind when you talk about igniting the atmosphere. There are staggering amounts of hydrocarbons within the earth's crust below Iran awaiting release and aerosolization into the earth's atmosphere. Meanwhile, if you doubt the Iranian resolve to start a nuclear holocaust when they are invaded to halt their uranium enrichment program: http://tinyurl.com/pc3a4 Still praying for your soul, dear Cary. Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love, Andrew http://tinyurl.com/jjl29 Op Fri, 26 May 2006 22:16:16 +0200 schreef Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD <nospam7@heartmdphd.com>: >> Op Fri, 26 May 2006 14:01:44 +0200 schreef Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD >> <andrew@heartmdphd.com>: [quoted text clipped - 86 lines] > > No. The job of watching the sheep actually belongs to the shepherd. Reread the story, the boy was the shepherd. >> But the bottom line is that when the wolf was coming and he >> tried to warn the villagers obody came, because he'd cried Wolf one to [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > the vicinity of the world's most populous city (Tokyo) the night before > the eclipse. There is always the chance of earthquakes, eclipses or not. But did the world end, as you predicted? > You will be in my prayers, dear Hannelle whom I love in Jesus' most > exalted and holy name. You telling me you love me makes me feel filthy. I'm off to take a long, hot bath. SignatureHannele aa #2221 > Op Fri, 26 May 2006 22:16:16 +0200 schreef Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD > <nospam7@heartmdphd.com>: [quoted text clipped - 90 lines] > > Reread the story, the boy was the shepherd. Indeed, you are correct. Apparently, the sheep belonged to the village who entrusted them to the care of the boy. > >> But the bottom line is that when the wolf was coming and he > >> tried to warn the villagers obody came, because he'd cried Wolf one to [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > There is always the chance of earthquakes, eclipses or not. As so there is a need for watchmen. > But did the world end, as you predicted? It continues to be my choice to refrain from prophesying. > > You will be in my prayers, dear Hannelle whom I love in Jesus' most > > exalted and holy name. > > You telling me you love me makes me feel filthy. That is actually abnormal. How long have you had this feeling whenever people expressed their love for you? > I'm off to take a long, hot bath. Would suggest that you inform your doctor about your difficulties with love. Still praying for your soul, dear Hannelle. Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love, Andrew http://tinyurl.com/jjl29 > : Proverbs 16:33 "We may throw the dice, but the LORD determines how > : they fall. " New Living Translation. If you're at all familiar with [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > as they do. If he's also a believer, that's OK, because he assumes that God > invented the laws of nature. If the scientist understands Proverbs 16:33, s/he understands that GOD commands the dice and all other things the world would characterize as being "random." > If those laws have a probabilistic component, > that's OK too, because God obviously had the right (and the power) to set them > up however he chose. Proverbs 16:33 indicates that GOD exercises HIS sovereignty all the time. > But your words quoted above suggest that you don't accept that argument. You > seem to be saying that God has no choice but to micromanage every detail of > every event in the universe. GOD's will is infinite. This means everything is HIS choice. While it is impossible for us to "micromanage" everything and so we judge this negatively (sour grapes), it is more than possible for HIM. Indeed, HE is omnipotent. HE is able to keep all things going according to HIS infinite will despite the free will HE has generously given each of us even when we are exercising our free will to sin (ie rebelling against HIS infinite will). > To me such a limitation on God's power seems a > bit presumptuous, but only from that position can you argue that evolution > cannot be a perfectly natural process that works just as scientists say it > does. Infinite will is not a limitation but fulfillment of omnipotence. > : BTW, I would use the same argument that an almighty God has no need > : for suicidal bombers to bring down buildings or make people dead. LORD GOD Almighty is able to use whomever and whatever HE chooses in any manner of HIS choosing to implement what HE has planned beforehand plus HE can change HIS mind. HE is truly omnipotent. > If > : He wants a certain building to fall, it will fall without your > : meddling. Or even with your meddling. > Here your argument gets in its own way. You're surely not suggesting that God > wanted the World Trade towers to be destroyed? (If you are, you're in a very > small theological minority.) What John has in his heart comes from the LORD and only he can tell you what the LORD has placed in his heart. If it were not the LORD's infinite will that the World Trade Towers be destroyed, they would not have been destroyed just as the Pentagon and White House were not (Few have discerning hearts). > So why, then, did he let those savages do it? One possible reason is to compel the U.S. to intervene in righting the many wrongs happening in the Muslim world. This event reminds me of Pearl Harbor. Still praying for your soul, dear Robert. Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love, Andrew http://tinyurl.com/jjl29 It seems to me I heard somewhere that John wrote in article <bmr172pb8n2tf1febo2niom9fktravf0kb@4ax.com>: >>It seems to me I heard somewhere that Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote in >>article <1148237189.045936.20910@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>: >>>> All Christians agree (I think) that God created the universe. The disagreement >>>> is over how he did it. Currently, Christianity is divided into two warring >>>> camps: those who see God as a scientist/engineer and those who see him as a >>>> magician. >>>There is a third group that knows GOD to be simply LORD GOD Almighty. >>That kind of "knowledge" does not account for how God acts to create or >>to guide. >>>> The former have no problem at all with evolution; the latter >>>> consider it heresy. Andrew, it seems, falls (unaccountably, IMO, given his >>>> background) in this latter group. >>>Actually, those with discerning hearts belong in the third group. >>>> Sorry, Andrew, but I think you're on the wrong side of this one. But what say >>>> you? >>>What is written above has been written plainly. >>>> Can you justify the "God is a magician" viewpoint with more substantive >>>> reasoning than just praying for our souls? ;^) >>>No, because I do not hold your fabricated viewpoint. Any true >>>scientist who has a genuine understanding of Proverbs 16:33 will feel >>>compelled to reject the theory of evolution. >>Having abandoned your training as a true scientist you have only your >>understanding of Proverbs 16:33 to support you. Since you always pull [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >i.e., no textual context. So....it is not so hard to see what it >means. In fact, there's no need for me to attempt a paraphrase. If you were at all familiar with Proverbs you would then know that that it is a collection of many common sayings of the times when it was gradually compiled (probably by oral tradition) and finally reduced to writing. Some have parallels in the contemporary documents of surrounding countries, as is true with much of the Old Testament. Casting lots was a common way to determine claims or facts at that time; the verse simply means that even if one casts the dice only God will be responsible for the outcome. Since we no longer cast lots (we use courts, lawyers, TV quasi-judges, hired arbitrators, and other methods of settling our disputes) the whole point is rather moot for the 21st century. It certainly does not support predestined outcomes as Chung seems to imply by his much rote citing. >To deny the truth of this verse, you would have to claim that an >almighty God cannot influence or determine the fall of a single throw [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >1:26 that Judas' replacement was chosen by a throwing of lots, thus >allowing God to make His own choice between the candidates. The whole argument is based on a prior assumption that God controls everything item by item. Mathematicians would argue for predictive formulas of probability; physicists might argue for chaos theory in which the outcome may depend on how a butterfly moves from flower to flower on the other side of the world. >I have previously posted on how we (engineers) know how to construct >mathematical sequences that appear to be random but, in fact, are not >and that there is no practical way for anyone not in on the secret to >discern the pattern. The creator, however, can easily produce any >desired bit from the sequence. Yet there are really random numbers, no matter how many apparent random sequences you generate. >BTW, I would use the same argument that an almighty God has no need >for suicidal bombers to bring down buildings or make people dead. If >He wants a certain building to fall, it will fall without your >meddling. Who's meddling? BTW, you seem to fall into the same group as Chung, seeing God as a cosmic meddler who can and will do whatever he wants whenever he wants. I much prefer the other, much more widely held, belief that the natural world is internally consistent and that questions of how it came to be are beyond science and lie within the domain of speculation and philosophy, which of course can include religious doctrines. BTW, I also reject the idea that God wanted the buildings to fall, with or without suicide bombers. SignatureDon Kirkman > It seems to me I heard somewhere that John wrote in article > <bmr172pb8n2tf1febo2niom9fktravf0kb@4ax.com>: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >>That kind of "knowledge" does not account for how God acts to create or > >>to guide. In a word: FAITH > >>>> The former have no problem at all with evolution; the latter > >>>> consider it heresy. Andrew, it seems, falls (unaccountably, IMO, given his [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > the verse simply means that even if one casts the dice only God will be > responsible for the outcome. For the discerning, it means that there is no randomness. > Since we no longer cast lots (we use courts, lawyers, TV quasi-judges, > hired arbitrators, and other methods of settling our disputes) the whole > point is rather moot for the 21st century. For the discerning, what the world would opine as either a fortunate or unfortunate outcome through the legal system would be simply a GOD-determined outcome. > It certainly does not > support predestined outcomes as Chung seems to imply by his much rote > citing. For the discerning, Proverbs 16:33 allows a scientific explanation for how our individual free wills can coexist with GOD's infinite will even when we are sinning (purposefully going against HIS infinite will). For example: You, Don, may become so upset by what you are now reading that you become convinced that the only way to win this argument is to seek me out to slay me as an exercise of your free will. If it is GOD's infinite will that I not "retire" from being at HIS service in this world just yet, everything you will attempt toward slaying me will be thwarted some even by seemingly "freaky" accidents but most by small seemingly insignificant "chance" unfortunate events. In this way, GOD's infinite will is realized both in your having an intact free will and the big picture still occurring according to GOD's plan. > >To deny the truth of this verse, you would have to claim that an > >almighty God cannot influence or determine the fall of a single throw [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > The whole argument is based on a prior assumption that God controls > everything item by item. HE does that down to the atomic level from moment to moment holding everything together. > Mathematicians would argue for predictive > formulas of probability; Those formulae come from HIM. > physicists might argue for chaos theory in > which the outcome may depend on how a butterfly moves from flower to > flower on the other side of the world. And so the LORD micromanages to the minutest detail. Indeed, it is written that HE has numbered every strand of our hair. > >I have previously posted on how we (engineers) know how to construct > >mathematical sequences that appear to be random but, in fact, are not [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Yet there are really random numbers, no matter how many apparent random > sequences you generate. Your assumption is without basis in fact. > >BTW, I would use the same argument that an almighty God has no need > >for suicidal bombers to bring down buildings or make people dead. If > >He wants a certain building to fall, it will fall without your > >meddling. > > Who's meddling? Homeland security. > BTW, you seem to fall into the same group as Chung, > seeing God as a cosmic meddler who can and will do whatever he wants > whenever he wants. HE is the Sovereign LORD GOD Almighty. > I much prefer the other, much more widely held, > belief that the natural world is internally consistent and that > questions of how it came to be are beyond science and lie within the > domain of speculation and philosophy, which of course can include > religious doctrines. IOW, you would capitalize Nature just as Charles Darwin did in his "The Origin of Species." > BTW, I also reject the idea that God wanted the buildings to fall, with > or without suicide bombers. All meaningful things happen in a manner that is in accord with GOD's infinite will. See discussion above. Still praying for your soul, dear Don. Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love, Andrew http://tinyurl.com/jjl29 > http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/conditions/05/13/indonesia.birdflu.reut/ > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > In Indonesia, the H5N1 virus has been reported in birds in about two-thirds > of the country's provinces. Better be careful with posts of this sort...they could give poor Andrew an unseemly erection (given his fascination with global death and destruction). GG > > http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/conditions/05/13/indonesia.birdflu.reut/ > > [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > Better be careful with posts of this sort...they could give poor Andrew an > unseemly erection (given his fascination with global death and destruction). Without the LORD, your fantasies are meaningless (Ecclesiastes). In the interim, the toddler and 25 yo man have died and there are 3 additional family members confirmed to be infected with H5N1 (8 H5N1 infected relatives resulting in 5 deaths so far): http://tinyurl.com/rc54m Recall that Sumatra is near the epicenter of that catastrophic magnitude 9 earthquake a little more than a year ago. They have not recovered from this and will therefore not have the socioeconomic means of containing this outbreak if indeed this is the pandemic H5N1 Avian Influenza virus that the WHO has been anticipating as the possible worst of the worse case scenarios (>90% kill rate). We should pray for them even though they are 90% Muslim. They remain neighbors that we love just as Jesus instructed the Jews to love the Samaritans who were to the Jews as the Muslims are now to Americans. May GOD help meet the needs of our Sumatran neighbors, whom we love in the holy name of GOD's one and only infinitely powerful Son, LORD Jesus Christ, Who chose to die on the cross in order to save us from all our deadly sins. Amen ! This is indeed dire news for the world as we know it. LORD willing, we will be holding an impromptu on-line chat about this very soon. Sign up for email notification through this link: http://tinyurl.com/8w7uq Still praying for your soul, dear Gary. Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love, Andrew http://tinyurl.com/mpuzr |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.