 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Cardiology / August 2006False teachings, was The Passion of Christ
When it was mentioned that three false doctrines were being taught we got the response: "Your bearing false withness against me is forgiven as far as I am concerned." If he now wants to turn away from the false doctrines then it can be said it was false witness. If he continues in the false doctrines then it is not. The measure as it has always been is the 2000 years of orthodox teaching on the topics of the false doctrines, it is not my opinions that matter. When using self reference alone lone ranger bible interpretation will almost always be false with out the correction of a communion of christians, such is what we find here. The love and blessing and protection and peace of God upon you. If we confess our sins He is quick to forgive them, very true; amen. No Damn it.... This is a cardiology topic. If you want to talk about God, I have no problem with that, but do it in a group about God or spirituality. I do believe in God, but I believe this is not the place to discuss these subjects. > When it was mentioned that three false doctrines were being taught we > got the response: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > The love and blessing and protection and peace of God upon you. If we > confess our sins He is quick to forgive them, very true; amen. > When it was mentioned that three false doctrines were being taught we > got the response: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > The love and blessing and protection and peace of God upon you. If we > confess our sins He is quick to forgive them, very true; amen. Are you sure you're not just trying to stir up trouble by making a mountain out of a mole hill? And just out of curiosity, what *do* the "communion of christians [sic]" (who I guess must have sent you here as their representative) think Jesus was teaching us with His cursing of the fig tree? And what is so wrong in believing that without the love of God to sustain them in being, all created things would simply cease to exist? Chuck Stamford > > When it was mentioned that three false doctrines were being taught we > > got the response: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Are you sure you're not just trying to stir up trouble by making a mountain > out of a mole hill? There are those who wish to believe they will know GOD through orthodox doctrine rather than through HIS Word with the counsel of the Holy Spirit. > And just out of curiosity, what *do* the "communion of christians [sic]" > (who I guess must have sent you here as their representative) think Jesus > was teaching us with His cursing of the fig tree? Orthodox doctrine which is man-made and not GOD-breathed has no explanation for why Christ Jesus cursed the fig tree for not bearing figs out-of-season (Mark 11:12-14) nor for why the tree was found the next morning withered to its roots (Mark 11:20). Since the Holy Spirit has given me the understanding that the fig tree sinned against GOD by refusing to bear fruit for LORD Jesus Christ, the thought of figs has been on my mind. In all my life, I have never eaten figs and I wondered how they tasted. Today without my asking her (did not know that she even had a fig tree), a patient brought me 4 figs from her tree (uncommon in Atlanta). She said this was the first time her tree had borne fruit and that she remembered my telling her to share whenever she had more food than she should eat and was moved to choose me to be the recipient of the extra harvest. These figs added to my lunch would have made my noon-time meal inordinately large at 15 ounces so I gave 2 to my office manager reducing the meal to a more reasonable 12 ounces. The figs were delicious ! ! Most assuredly without doubt GOD reads our minds and is sovereign over all things. Amen ! Laus Deo ! Marana tha ! > And what is so wrong in believing that without the love of God to sustain > them in being, all created things would simply cease to exist? It threatens the authority of those who Calvin represents. People of this world control others through fear and intimidation. Only GOD can draw us to HIM with HIS love and kindness. HE is our Shepherd. We are HIS sheep. May GOD continue to bless you, dear brother Chuck whom I love unconditionally. Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love, Andrew <>< -- Andrew B. Chung Cardiologist, Atlanta, Georgia, USA http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit As for knowing who are the very elect, these you will know by the unconditional love they have for everyone including their enemies (Matthew 5:44-45, 1 Corinthians 13:3, James 2:14-17). http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/d3b7b57d0fbf89ed? >> > When it was mentioned that three false doctrines were being taught we >> > got the response: [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > > Amen ! On all but the part about the tree sinning. You know, it doesn't necessarily follow from the fact that all creation "groans" under the curse of God against the sin of Adam, that all of creation sins. It's entirely possible for something to be affected by the actions of another without that thing being a culpable party to that action. And it's entirely possible that that poor little fig tree wasn't producing any fruit, not because of its own sin, but because of the sin of Adam, whom God had (before his sin and fall from grace) given dominion over His creation. So just as Adam's sin rebounds to us because we all come "out of" Adam, so to it rebounds to all creation because all creation was under Adam's dominion when he sinned. In any case, if Genesis teaches us nothing else about "sin", it teaches us that sinning (just as "loving") requires making a morally significant and uncoerced choice. > Laus Deo ! > > Marana tha ! That gets an unconditional "Amen"! >> And what is so wrong in believing that without the love of God to sustain >> them in being, all created things would simply cease to exist? > > It threatens the authority of those who Calvin represents. Who could Calvin possibly represent that would see the love of God sustaining them in being as a "threat" to their authority? > People of this world control others through fear and intimidation. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > May GOD continue to bless you, dear brother Chuck whom I love > unconditionally. And may He continue to bless you as well. Chuck Stamford > >> > When it was mentioned that three false doctrines were being taught we > >> > got the response: [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > necessarily follow from the fact that all creation "groans" under the curse > of God against the sin of Adam, that all of creation sins. Correct. Sin arises from choice made through the free will generously given by GOD to the soul. > It's entirely > possible for something to be affected by the actions of another without that > thing being a culpable party to that action. Correct. > And it's entirely possible > that that poor little fig tree wasn't producing any fruit, not because of > its own sin, but because of the sin of Adam, whom God had (before his sin > and fall from grace) given dominion over His creation. It is through the original sin of Adam and Eve that a sinful nature was conferred to the souls of everything that GOD created in this world. Prior to the original sin, only the serpent satan in the garden of Eden had a sinful nature (Genesis 3:1 and Revelation 12:9). The tree of knowledge of good and evil standing in the middle of the garden was a fig tree and was the source of the leaves that Adam and Eve used to make coverings for themselves (Genesis 3:7). It was not by chance that a fig tree sinned against GOD here. Indeed, there is no such thing as chance (Proverbs 16:33). > So just as Adam's > sin rebounds to us because we all come "out of" Adam, so to it rebounds to > all creation because all creation was under Adam's dominion when he sinned. See above. > In any case, if Genesis teaches us nothing else about "sin", it teaches us > that sinning (just as "loving") requires making a morally significant and > uncoerced choice. GOD's choice to give HIS generous gift of free will while retaining HIS infinite will speaks to HIS infinite glory. Laus Deo ! Marana tha ! May GOD continue to heal our hearts, dear brother Chuck whom I love unconditionally. Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love, Andrew <>< -- Andrew B. Chung Cardiologist, Atlanta, Georgia, USA http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit As for knowing who are the very elect, these you will know by the unconditional love they have for everyone including their enemies (Matthew 5:44-45, 1 Corinthians 13:3, James 2:14-17). http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/d3b7b57d0fbf89ed? Andrew the Dishonest wrote: > Prior to the original sin, only the serpent satan in the garden of Eden > had a sinful nature (Genesis 3:1 and Revelation 12:9). You need to re-read your bible. His name was not satan. I'll give you a clue. The number of the name of the serpent, is the number 358. It consists of 3 letters. HTH with your Hebrew > Andrew wrote: > > > Prior to the original sin, only the serpent satan in the garden of Eden > > had a sinful nature (Genesis 3:1 and Revelation 12:9). > > You need to re-read your bible. His name was not satan. "... that ancient serpent called the devil or satan, who leads the whole world astray." (Revelation 12:9) May GOD continue to heal your heart, dear neighbor whom I love unconditionally. Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love, Andrew <>< -- Andrew B. Chung Cardiologist, Atlanta, Georgia, USA http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit As for knowing who are the very elect, these you will know by the unconditional love they have for everyone including their enemies (Matthew 5:44-45, 1 Corinthians 13:3, James 2:14-17). http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/d3b7b57d0fbf89ed? Andrew the Dishonest wrote: > "... that ancient serpent called the devil or satan, who leads the > whole world astray." (Revelation 12:9) Revelation wasn't written in Hebrew. Try again. HTH with your Hebrew. > Andrew wrote: > > > "... that ancient serpent called the devil or satan, who leads the > > whole world astray." (Revelation 12:9) > > Revelation wasn't written in Hebrew. Does not matter because the naming of satan occurred before there was human language. May GOD continue to heal your heart, dear neighbor whom I love unconditionally. Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love, Andrew <>< -- Andrew B. Chung Cardiologist, Atlanta, Georgia, USA http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit As for knowing who are the very elect, these you will know by the unconditional love they have for everyone including their enemies (Matthew 5:44-45, 1 Corinthians 13:3, James 2:14-17). http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/d3b7b57d0fbf89ed? >> >> > When it was mentioned that three false doctrines were being taught >> >> > we [quoted text clipped - 75 lines] > It is through the original sin of Adam and Eve that a sinful nature was > conferred to the souls of everything that GOD created in this world. So what does "soul" mean as you're using it here, Andrew? I take it to mean the sum of our cognitive faculties; our faculties of perception, reasoning, memory, sympathy, testimony, and something Calvin called the "sensus divinitus"; that faculty in us the Holy Spirit of God uses to communicate with us. (And I don't mean by "faculty" something material in this instance. I mean, taking "perception" as the example here, the perceptual "beliefs" we form, or perhaps even more explicitly, have delivered to us by this perceptual faculty, on having our visual apparatus stimulated) So as I understand soul, at a minimum, it takes a "person" to have one; understanding that at a minimum a "person" is a being possessed of "mind", "will", and "emotion". So, by extenstion, I believe that only "persons" are capable of making cognitive choices, and to "sin" takes, at a bear minimum, making a cognitive choice. > Prior to the original sin, only the serpent satan in the garden of Eden > had a sinful nature (Genesis 3:1 and Revelation 12:9). I don't think he was the "only" one. Scripture tells us of a "war" that took place in heaven when Satan fell from grace, and that he took a "third" of all the angels God created with him in that war, which resulted in all of them being cast out of heaven. Now I take these stories to be true, but I also take them to be metaphorical to some degree. So I'm not sure I take the "war" literally, but I take Satan and his angels being cast out of heaven literally in the sense that their state of being before God was irrevocably changed and damaged beyond repair, even for God. The point being that when Satan entered the Garden as the serpent, more persons (angels being "persons") than just him had sinned against God...and we have God's word for that. > The tree of knowledge of good and evil standing in the middle of the > garden was a fig tree and was the source of the leaves that Adam and > Eve used to make coverings for themselves (Genesis 3:7). Andrew, the text doesn't tell us that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was a fig tree, nor does it tell us that the fig leaves Adam and Eve sewed together to cover their "nakedness" after their sin came from that tree. What you're doing here is working off an inference from the text, not the text itself. > It was not by chance that a fig tree sinned against GOD here. How is it possible, even if the tree of the knowledge of good and evil were a fig tree, that it sinned? What did it *do*, Andrew, except be what God created it to be? It didn't engage in some act contrary to its Divine design. It was just there, standing in the middle of the Garden exactly where God placed it when He created it, being what God intended it to be: an alternative for Adam and Eve that gave to them the potential to exercise *their* free will and make a choice either to obey God or disobey. I would suggest to you that it was God's *command* to Adam not to eat of it that made eating of it sinful; not that the tree, in and of itself, was sinful, or had committed any sin against its Creator. The tree came straight from God who is perfectly holy, and did nothing but what God intended in creating it. If our premise is that it is sinful, then we have to find some way of avoiding that it's sinfulness was created *in it* by God, and to do that we would need to identify some act of the tree contrary to the will of it's Creator in the text...and there just isn't any that I can find. I would also suggest to you that there is nothing inherently sinful about the knowledge of good and evil. There can't be, because God is omniscient, which means God surely must have this knowledge, and God certainly isn't sinning against Himself by having it. > Indeed, there is no such thing as chance (Proverbs 16:33). You get a big "Amen" to that! I'd only qualify it by adding that I don't believe God's creation is completely deterministic in nature, because if it were, free will would be an illusion, and I don't accept that free will is an illusion anymore than I accept that sin is an illusion. People who commit sin may be said to be suffering under an "illusion" when they do, but the sin itself is absolutely real. >> So just as Adam's >> sin rebounds to us because we all come "out of" Adam, so to it rebounds [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > See above. They say that if you get Genesis right, the rest of biblical theology comes much easier. Here's a passage from Genesis I'd like you to give some thought, and then tell me what it means to you. Then God blessed them [Adam and Eve], and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth." 29 And God said, "See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. 30 "Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food"; and it was so. Gen 1:28-30 (NKJV - "Adam and Eve" aren't in the text, but for any casual readers who might read this post, they are who God is speaking to in the text, so I've inserted their names in brackets to denote that fact) I take it that what is being said here is very important, for in a chapter that runs only 31 verses, and summarizes God creation of *everything* that He created, three of those verses are used to express this message! That's 10% of the text that deals with all of creation spent to tell us whatever it's telling us. I'd like to know what you think it's telling us, and why it's given this much attention in God's word. >> In any case, if Genesis teaches us nothing else about "sin", it teaches >> us [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > GOD's choice to give HIS generous gift of free will while retaining HIS > infinite will speaks to HIS infinite glory. Yes it certainly does. But it also means there are truths here that are true because they are contingent upon God having given the marvelous gift of free will, and one of those contingent truths is that God gives that gift only to persons (i.e., to *be* a "person", a being must possess free will as an essential property, by definition), which entails that only a person can sin, because sin requires not only that a person possess (as God's gift) free will, but exercise it; make a choice; albeit a poor one, since we are talking about sinning. God bless Chuck Stamford > Laus Deo ! > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/d3b7b57d0fbf89ed? > >> >> > When it was mentioned that three false doctrines were being taught > >> >> > we [quoted text clipped - 77 lines] > > So what does "soul" mean as you're using it here, Andrew? The same soul/spirit as described in the Holy Bible: "But if from there you seek the LORD your God, you will find HIM if you look for HIM with all your heart and with all your soul." (Deut 4:29) "Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength." (Deut 6:5) "The LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love HIM with all your heart and with all your soul." (Deut 13:3) "The LORD your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may love HIM with all your heart and with all your soul, and live."(Deut 30:6) "...to preserve his soul from the pit, his life from perishing by the sword." (Job 33:18) "HE redeemed my soul from going down to the pit, and I will live to enjoy the light." (Job 33:28) "The LORD examines the righteous, but the wicked and those who love violence HIS soul hates." (Psalm 11:5) "To you, O LORD, I lift up my soul" (Psalm 25:1) "As the deer pants for streams of water, so my soul pants for you, O GOD." (Psalm 42:1) "My soul thirsts for GOD, for the living GOD. When can I go and meet with GOD?" (Psalm 42:2) "O GOD, you are my GOD, earnestly I seek YOU; my soul thirsts for YOU, my body longs for YOU, in a dry and weary land where there is no water." (Psalm 63:1) "I spread out my hands to YOU; my soul thirsts for YOU like a parched land." (Psalm 143:6) "The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life, and he who wins souls is wise." (Proverbs 11:30) "For every living soul belongs to ME, the father as well as the son-both alike belong to ME. The soul who sins is the one who will die." (Ezek 18:4) "Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the ONE Who can destroy both soul and body in hell." (Matt 10:28) "What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul? Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul?" (Matt 16:26) "For you were like sheep going astray, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls." (1 Peter 2:25) "When HE opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of GOD and the testimony they had maintained." (Rev 6:9) "I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony for Jesus and because of the word of GOD. They had not worshiped the beast or his image and had not received his mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years." (Rev 20:4) > I take it to mean > the sum of our cognitive faculties; our faculties of perception, reasoning, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > "beliefs" we form, or perhaps even more explicitly, have delivered to us by > this perceptual faculty, on having our visual apparatus stimulated) See above. Clearly the soul is much more. > So as I understand soul, at a minimum, it takes a "person" to have one; > understanding that at a minimum a "person" is a being possessed of "mind", > "will", and "emotion". So, by extenstion, I believe that only "persons" are > capable of making cognitive choices, and to "sin" takes, at a bear minimum, > making a cognitive choice. The understanding given to me by the Holy Spirit is that GOD has placed souls in everything HE commands. > > Prior to the original sin, only the serpent satan in the garden of Eden > > had a sinful nature (Genesis 3:1 and Revelation 12:9). [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > (angels being "persons") than just him had sinned against God...and we have > God's word for that. The other fallen beings were not in the garden of Eden. > > The tree of knowledge of good and evil standing in the middle of the > > garden was a fig tree and was the source of the leaves that Adam and > > Eve used to make coverings for themselves (Genesis 3:7). > > Andrew, the text doesn't tell us that the tree of the knowledge of good and > evil was a fig tree Correct. This understanding was "sealed" so that people would not automatically believe that either the fig tree or its figs were to be avoided. >, nor does it tell us that the fig leaves Adam and Eve > sewed together to cover their "nakedness" after their sin came from that > tree. Correct. This is part of the "seal." > What you're doing here is working off an inference from the text, not > the text itself. In truth, this is an understanding from the Holy Spirit. > > It was not by chance that a fig tree sinned against GOD here. > > How is it possible, even if the tree of the knowledge of good and evil were > a fig tree, that it sinned? It had a soul and free will. > What did it *do*, Andrew, except be what God created it to be? GOD did not want Adam and Eve to fall from HIS grace by disobeying and sinning against HIM. The fig tree willfully played along with satan's deception of Eve. It could have chosen not to bear fruit for Eve just as its descendant chose not to bear fruit for LORD Jesus Christ (Mark 11:12-14). > It didn't engage in some act contrary to its Divine > design. It was just there, standing in the middle of the Garden exactly > where God placed it when He created it, being what God intended it to be: an > alternative for Adam and Eve that gave to them the potential to exercise > *their* free will and make a choice either to obey God or disobey. See above. > I would suggest to you that it was God's *command* to Adam not to eat of it > that made eating of it sinful; Correct. > not that the tree, in and of itself, was > sinful, or had committed any sin against its Creator. The tree was a willing participant in deceiving Eve. > The tree came > straight from God who is perfectly holy, and did nothing but what God > intended in creating it. The tree willfully did nothing to keep Eve from being deceived by satan. Such is the sin of omission. > If our premise is that it is sinful, then we have > to find some way of avoiding that it's sinfulness was created *in it* by > God, and to do that we would need to identify some act of the tree contrary > to the will of it's Creator in the text...and there just isn't any that I > can find. See above. The sinful nature of the forbidden tree would not be fully revealed until LORD Jesus Christ cursed its descendant fig tree as described in Mark 11. > I would also suggest to you that there is nothing inherently sinful about > the knowledge of good and evil. The knowledge of good and evil without omniscience is incomplete and harmful as was demonstrated in Adam and Eve.. > There can't be, because God is omniscient, > which means God surely must have this knowledge, and God certainly isn't > sinning against Himself by having it. Omniscience, which is complete knowledge, is holy, which is by definition without sin. > > Indeed, there is no such thing as chance (Proverbs 16:33). > > You get a big "Amen" to that! I'd only qualify it by adding that I don't > believe God's creation is completely deterministic in nature, because if it > were, free will would be an illusion, and I don't accept that free will is > an illusion anymore than I accept that sin is an illusion. Thought is separate from its actuation. The former arises from our respective free wills and the latter is controlled by GOD's infinite free will. It is the latter that is being described in Proverbs 16:33. > People who > commit sin may be said to be suffering under an "illusion" when they do, but > the sin itself is absolutely real. ...even when GOD does not permit the sinful thought to become action. > >> So just as Adam's > >> sin rebounds to us because we all come "out of" Adam, so to it rebounds [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > it's telling us. I'd like to know what you think it's telling us, and why > it's given this much attention in God's word. These verses tell us of HIS love for us. They tell us how HE has shown HIS love for us with the showering of gifts upon HIS beloved though we have sinned against HIM. Our GOD loves us so very much (John 3:16). > >> In any case, if Genesis teaches us nothing else about "sin", it teaches > >> us [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > free will, but exercise it; make a choice; albeit a poor one, since we are > talking about sinning. Would have your remember that it is written that Christ Jesus has informed us that the stones would cry out to praise HIM if we were to fall silent. These are related to the stones in the desert that could have been commanded by HIM to turn to bread. The mountains can be commanded by HIM to jump into the sea. The storm clouds were commanded by HIM to disperse and they obeyed ! The fish was commanded to swallow a gold coin and be caught by HIS disciples in order to be brought to HIM to pay the temple tax and it obeyed ! May GOD continue to heal our hearts, dear brother Chuck whom I love unconditionally. Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love, Andrew <>< -- Andrew B. Chung Cardiologist, Atlanta, Georgia, USA http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit As for knowing who are the very elect, these you will know by the unconditional love they have for everyone including their enemies (Matthew 5:44-45, 1 Corinthians 13:3, James 2:14-17). http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/d3b7b57d0fbf89ed? Andrew the Dishonest wrote: > "But if from there you seek the LORD your God, you will find HIM if you > look for HIM with all your heart and with all your soul." (Deut 4:29) Is this the same Deuteronomy which states that rabbits chew the cud? (Deut 14:7) And the same Deuteronomy which commands you to stone to death a girl who has had sex before marriage? (Deut 22:20-21) Andrew the Dishonest wrote: > "The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life, and he who wins souls is > wise." (Proverbs 11:30) Is this the same Proverbs which states that a righteous and loving parent should beat their children with a stick? (Proverbs 13:24; 23:13; 22:15) > Andrew wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Is this the same Deuteronomy which states that rabbits chew the cud? > (Deut 14:7) "However, of those that chew the cud or that have a split hoof completely divided you may not eat the camel, the rabbit or the coney, Although they chew the cud, they do not have a split hoof; they are ceremonially unclean for you." (Deut 14:7) International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, page 616: This animal is mentioned only in the lists of unclean animals in Leviticus and Deuteronomy...The hare and the coney are not ruminants, but might be supposed to be from their habit of almost continuously moving their jaws. Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, 2000 edition, page 552: Because it "chews the cud" but "does not have divided hoofs," the hare is classified as an unclean animal (Lev. 11:6; Deut. 14:7). Actually, it is not a ruminant but may have appeared as such to ancient obervers because of its constant chewing movements. From: http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=492669 May GOD continue to heal your heart, dear neighbor whom I love unconditionally. Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love, Andrew <>< -- Andrew B. Chung Cardiologist, Atlanta, Georgia, USA http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit As for knowing who are the very elect, these you will know by the unconditional love they have for everyone including their enemies (Matthew 5:44-45, 1 Corinthians 13:3, James 2:14-17). http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/d3b7b57d0fbf89ed? Andrew the Dishonest wrote: > > Is this the same Deuteronomy which states that rabbits chew the cud? > > (Deut 14:7) > International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, page 616: > This animal is mentioned only in the lists of unclean animals in > Leviticus and Deuteronomy...The hare and the coney are not ruminants, > but might be supposed to be from their habit of almost continuously > moving their jaws. 'Supposed'? Supposed by whom? The omniscient and infallible Lord God who created them? That is impossible. God would not 'suppose', and he certainly wouldn't get it wrong. Twice. Or maybe Deut 14:7 is not the word of God, but of some ignorant desert nomad. > Andrew the Dishonest wrote: > > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Supposed by whom? By people who all fall short of GOD's glory. May GOD continue to heal your heart, dear neighbor whom I love unconditionally. Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love, Andrew <>< -- Andrew B. Chung Cardiologist, Atlanta, Georgia, USA http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit As for knowing who are the very elect, these you will know by the unconditional love they have for everyone including their enemies (Matthew 5:44-45, 1 Corinthians 13:3, James 2:14-17). http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/d3b7b57d0fbf89ed? Andrew the Dishonest wrote: > > Supposed by whom? > > By people who all fall short of GOD's glory. People such as the authors of Deuteronomy. People who claim that Deuteronomy is the word of God - a blatent blasphemy. > Andrew the Dishonest wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > People such as the authors of Deuteronomy. "A writer who does not write at the level of his/her audience has no audience." -- Holy Spirit. This is so that both you and Chuck Stamford will know that HE is here with me. May GOD continue to heal your heart thereby holding your interest, dear neighbor whom I love unconditionally. Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love, Andrew <>< -- Andrew B. Chung Cardiologist, Atlanta, Georgia, USA http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit As for knowing who are the very elect, these you will know by the unconditional love they have for everyone including their enemies (Matthew 5:44-45, 1 Corinthians 13:3, James 2:14-17). http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/d3b7b57d0fbf89ed? Andrew the Dishonest wrote: > > Andrew the Dishonest wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > "A writer who does not write at the level of his/her audience has no > audience." -- Holy Spirit. And what does that mean? That you are the level of an ignorant desert nomad circa the late stone age. Whereas Chuck and I are of a sufficiently enlightened level that we undestand the difference between cattle anbd bunny rabbits? I'm not entirely convinced by such humility Andrew, but you carry on digging yourself into that hole of yours... > Andrew the Dishonest wrote: > > > Andrew the Dishonest wrote: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > And what does that mean? It means that the instructions about not eating rabbits were given to folks who believed that rabbits were ruminating animals and not to those who know that rabbits are not ruminating animals. We belong to the latter group and so we eat rabbits without disobeying GOD (i.e. our eating rabbits in the here and now is no longer sin). May GOD continue to heal your heart, dear neighbor whom I love unconditionally. Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love, Andrew <>< -- Andrew B. Chung Cardiologist, Atlanta, Georgia, USA http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit As for knowing who are the very elect, these you will know by the unconditional love they have for everyone including their enemies (Matthew 5:44-45, 1 Corinthians 13:3, James 2:14-17). http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/d3b7b57d0fbf89ed? Andrew the Dishonest wrote: > It means that the instructions about not eating rabbits were given to > folks who believed that rabbits were ruminating animals and not to > those who know that rabbits are not ruminating animals. We belong to > the latter group and so we eat rabbits without disobeying GOD (i.e. our > eating rabbits in the here and now is no longer sin). What a load of bullshit.Or is it rabbitshit? Instead of lying to them, why didn't God tell them the truth? > Andrew wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > What a load of bullshit.Or is it rabbitshit? Sorry you don't like the answer. Please forgive all my iniquities. > Instead of lying to them, why didn't God tell them the truth? Human knowledge is not the truth because it changes. GOD is the truth because HE does not change. "I am the way, the truth, and the life..." -- LORD Jesus Christ. May GOD continue to heal your heart, dear neighbor whom I love unconditionally. Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love, Andrew <>< -- Andrew B. Chung Cardiologist, Atlanta, Georgia, USA http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit As for knowing who are the very elect, these you will know by the unconditional love they have for everyone including their enemies (Matthew 5:44-45, 1 Corinthians 13:3, James 2:14-17). http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/d3b7b57d0fbf89ed? It seems to me I heard somewhere that Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote in article <1156406829.716591.321760@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>: >> So what does "soul" mean as you're using it here, Andrew? >The same soul/spirit as described in the Holy Bible: >"But if from there you seek the LORD your God, you will find HIM if you >look for HIM with all your heart and with all your soul." (Deut 4:29) >"Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and >with all your strength." (Deut 6:5) >"The LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love HIM with >all your heart and with all your soul." (Deut 13:3) >"The LORD your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your >descendants, so that you may love HIM with all your heart and with all >your soul, and live."(Deut 30:6) >"...to preserve his soul from the pit, his life from perishing by the >sword." (Job 33:18) >"HE redeemed my soul from going down to the pit, and I will live to >enjoy the light." (Job 33:28) >"The LORD examines the righteous, but the wicked and those who love >violence HIS soul hates." (Psalm 11:5) >"To you, O LORD, I lift up my soul" (Psalm 25:1) >"As the deer pants for streams of water, so my soul pants for you, O >GOD." (Psalm 42:1) >"My soul thirsts for GOD, for the living GOD. When can I go and meet >with GOD?" (Psalm 42:2) >"O GOD, you are my GOD, earnestly I seek YOU; my soul thirsts for YOU, >my body longs for YOU, in a dry and weary land where there is no >water." (Psalm 63:1) >"I spread out my hands to YOU; my soul thirsts for YOU like a parched >land." (Psalm 143:6) >"The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life, and he who wins souls is >wise." (Proverbs 11:30) >"For every living soul belongs to ME, the father as well as the >son-both alike belong to ME. The soul who sins is the one who will >die." (Ezek 18:4) >"Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. >Rather, be afraid of the ONE Who can destroy both soul and body in >hell." (Matt 10:28) >"What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet >forfeits his soul? Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul?" >(Matt 16:26) >"For you were like sheep going astray, but now you have returned to the >Shepherd and Overseer of your souls." (1 Peter 2:25) >"When HE opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of >those who had been slain because of the word of GOD and the testimony >they had maintained." (Rev 6:9) >"I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority >to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of >their testimony for Jesus and because of the word of GOD. They had not >worshiped the beast or his image and had not received his mark on their >foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a >thousand years." (Rev 20:4) Which of those citations refers to a "soul" in an inanimate (literally "soulless") object? "Soul" translates the Hebrew "nephesh", Greek "psyche", literally the animating principle of life; "spirit" is Hebrew "ruah", Greek "pneuma", related to breath and air. Once more you're paying the price for your unwillingness to learn from others what the texts mean.  SignatureDon Kirkman >> >> >> > When it was mentioned that three false doctrines were being >> >> >> > taught [quoted text clipped - 181 lines] > > Clearly the soul is much more. How so, Andrew? Look at those several passages you selected. Is there even one of them which tells us what the "soul" essentially is? They tell us to love God with all of it; lift it up to God; that it can be ruined; be in the presence of God, but not a word about any of its essential properties. We could look together and find scores of other passages telling us what a soul does, or can do, and what happens to a soul under various circumstances, but we would have to *infer* from all this indirect evidence what a soul *is*. We know it can be lifted up to God, become weary, be in a state of longing, continue to exist after the body dies, be saved by faith, or ruined by disbelief; can love and bring glory to God its Creator, or sin against Him.. Since we can say the same things about our "mind", it seems to me that the mind and soul are, if not the same thing, then things that are very similar. Now I understand that this is inference, and that inferences don't enjoy the same status as propositions expressed explicitly in God's word, i.e., they can be wrong. But this inference, I think, is well grounded so long as we don't understand the "mind" to simply be the brain. As long as we understand that the mind is that immaterial part of "us", the part of us that continues on after our physical part dies (or is changed in the twinkling of an eye at the coming of our Lord!), I think this inference presents no problems for anything else in Scripture, and accounts fairly well with the scriptural account of the soul, indirect as that account is. >> So as I understand soul, at a minimum, it takes a "person" to have one; >> understanding that at a minimum a "person" is a being possessed of [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > The understanding given to me by the Holy Spirit is that GOD has placed > souls in everything HE commands. But you can't examine that understanding; test it to see if it's true, unless or until you understand what a "soul" is, and that means being able to identify at least some of its essential properties. Perhaps it's true that God has given souls to everything He has "commanded" (which I take it means "created"), and perhaps it isn't. I know that I have the Spirit of God indwelling me; giving me what insights I've had into God's word; giving me the knowledge of God that I have, and I know I'M not infallible, or even inerrant in those understandings....ever. Many times in my Christian experience I've found myself having to give up a strong belief that I had upon discovering that it wasn't true (often because I couldn't maintain it consistently without causing God's word to become contradictory at some point); that I'd misunderstood what the Holy Spirit wanted me to know as I studied His word. If I took the position that I *shouldn't* test my beliefs from time to time, shouldn't take the chance that perhaps I was believing what wasn't true, I don't think I'd have ever been in a position for the Holy Spirit to correct those beliefs that were false, and affirm those that were true. And I think this has to be an ongoing process in the life of every believer, because love abides in the truth, and as long as we allow this process to continue, guided by God's Spirit of love, as we study His word and His creation, we continue to approach more fully God's truth. >> > Prior to the original sin, only the serpent satan in the garden of Eden >> > had a sinful nature (Genesis 3:1 and Revelation 12:9). [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > The other fallen beings were not in the garden of Eden. I'm sorry. I didn't realize that you were speaking of only those who were "in the Garden" just before the Fall. I thought you were saying that at that time only Satan, of all created beings *anywhere*, had a sinful nature. But we can't really say with any certainty that there were no other fallen angels but Satan in the Garden. All we can say with certainty is that Satan is the only one spoken of. Perhaps others were there, but are not mentioned in the story because doing so would simply be a distraction or irrelevancy to the message God wants to give us at that particular juncture of His revelation. >> > The tree of knowledge of good and evil standing in the middle of the >> > garden was a fig tree and was the source of the leaves that Adam and [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > automatically believe that either the fig tree or its figs were to be > avoided. Where does God's word say anything about the knowledge of what kind of tree it was being "sealed"? >>, nor does it tell us that the fig leaves Adam and Eve >> sewed together to cover their "nakedness" after their sin came from that [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > In truth, this is an understanding from the Holy Spirit. Then it should be able to stand up to a careful analysis. All truth does, you know. I'm wondering if you've done that with this understanding. >> > It was not by chance that a fig tree sinned against GOD here. >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > It could have chosen not to bear fruit for Eve just as its descendant > chose not to bear fruit for LORD Jesus Christ (Mark 11:12-14). But that's just you saying it could choose, Andrew. I look around at God's creation, and the only things I can find that can truly choose to engage in an act or refrain from engaging in it are persons. I also don't find anywhere in God's revelation of His truth where God specifically says that everything He created, He created with free will. I don't even find any grounds in God's word for that conclusion, Andrew. All I find is you saying it's true, and that you understand this by the Holy Spirit. That's not good enough, Andrew. If it were, then what's to stop us Christians from forming all sorts of strange beliefs about which God's word is completely silent, and which fly directly in the face of everything we can discover about God's creation using those cognitive faculties God gave us for, in part, just that purpose? We have to have more than just a feeling, or a thought that comes strongly to our minds to believe that it is from the Holy Spirit, and so should accept it as true. There are other spirits in the world besides the Holy Spirit, and our own hearts, as God's word *expressly* tells us, are "deceitful". >> It didn't engage in some act contrary to its Divine >> design. It was just there, standing in the middle of the Garden exactly [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > See above. All that's "above" is your belief, expressed as a naked assertion, Andrew. There's not a scintilla of evidence, either biblical or scientific, to support that belief. And there is a veritable mountain of both kinds of evidence to support rejecting that belief. So, seeing above doesn't give anyone much in the way of a compelling reason to think they should join you in your belief that fig trees can make cognitive choices and can sin. >> I would suggest to you that it was God's *command* to Adam not to eat of >> it [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Such is the sin of omission. The problem is that God's word doesn't say the tree had any responsibilities in this area, Andrew. All God's word says about the tree is that it was standing there in the Garden *just* as God created it. If it had fruit, then it was by God's design that it had fruit. God certainly wouldn't be so irrational as to command Adam not to eat of the fruit of a tree that might not have any fruit! Do you see how weird this is getting? Do you begin to see the problems this belief brings with it for understanding God's actions and commands? If the *tree* sinned in producing fruit for Adam and Eve to eat, then the original entrance of sin in the world comes through the *tree*, not through Adam! Yet God's word *specifically* says that sin entered the world through Adam. "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin..." Romans 5:12a (NKJV) >> If our premise is that it is sinful, then we have >> to find some way of avoiding that it's sinfulness was created *in it* by [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > revealed until LORD Jesus Christ cursed its descendant fig tree as > described in Mark 11. I'm not talking about its nature being revealed to us. I'm talking about its being; what it essentially was; and *that*, as God's word strongly implies, had the infinitely holy God as it's *direct* source. God *specially* created that tree, Andrew. He didn't cause it to grow anymore than He caused the Tree of Life to grow out of the ground of the Garden. And out of the ground the LORD God made every tree grow that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Gen 2:9 (NKJV) Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever"-- Gen 3:22 (NKJV) As we can see, the text of Genesis strongly implies that Adam never ate of the Tree of Life either before he ate of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, and God acted to *prevent* him from doing so afterward. So these two trees are remarkably different from all the other trees in the Garden, which God gave to Adam and Eve for food and to "tend". These two trees are very special; very different; and quite frankly, most probably metaphors for something else anyway. Now we know from Revelation that the Tree of Life still exists in Heaven (Rev. 2:7), and we know that nothing mortal may be in heaven (1 Cor.15:53-54), which gives me good grounds for believing that the Tree of Life wasn't a tree as we normally think of trees...which means that it's a *metaphor* for something *other than* a tree as we normally think of trees. And since the Tree of Life and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil are both spoken of in Genesis as being very special, very distinguishable from all the other trees God caused to grow in the Garden, gave to Adam for food and to tend, it is not a giant leap to look on the TKGE as a metaphor as well. >> I would also suggest to you that there is nothing inherently sinful about >> the knowledge of good and evil. > > The knowledge of good and evil without omniscience is incomplete and > harmful as was demonstrated in Adam and Eve.. I said "inherently". Maybe you missed that. >> There can't be, because God is omniscient, >> which means God surely must have this knowledge, and God certainly isn't >> sinning against Himself by having it. > > Omniscience, which is complete knowledge, is holy, which is by > definition without sin. I suppose I'd agree with that. One can't "know" to be true what is actually false, and "sin" always entails some belief that a false proposition is true. Omniscience, taken as believing all true propositions to be true, and all false propositions to be false, would then by the definition of "omniscience" and "sin" given be unable to sin. >> > Indeed, there is no such thing as chance (Proverbs 16:33). >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > respective free wills and the latter is controlled by GOD's infinite > free will. It is the latter that is being described in Proverbs 16:33. This doesn't work. If our beliefs do not in some real sense cause our actions, but God does, then God becomes directly responsible for all the actual evil in the world; all the actual murders, actual robberies, actual torturings, etc. No, Andrew, our beliefs ground our actions, our cognitive faculties form those beliefs, and God grounds those faculties, having created them in us. >> People who >> commit sin may be said to be suffering under an "illusion" when they do, >> but >> the sin itself is absolutely real. > > ...even when GOD does not permit the sinful thought to become action. Well, yes. Thoughts that don't result in actions can still be sinful if we entertain them instead of doing what we can to reject them as sinful. >> >> So just as Adam's >> >> sin rebounds to us because we all come "out of" Adam, so to it [quoted text clipped - 80 lines] > disciples in order to be brought to HIM to pay the temple tax and it > obeyed ! Well you're tacking on the part about the fish swallowing the coin, but certainly God is able to do whatever it is possible; logically possible, to do. It's not logically impossible that the word "Hosanna" emanate from stones, or be turned into bread, etc., so certainly an omnipotent God could do these things if He wanted to. But the subject isn't miracles, Andrew, it's how God designed the world for His own purposes, a good deal of which He reveals to us in His word. And from everything we can glean from that revelation, plus what we can discover of God's truth through "natural revelation", it seems pretty apparent that fig trees don't sin. God continue to bless you, Andrew Chuck Stamford > <read, understood, appreciated, and snipped> Our LORD's purpose for me here remains to inform and not to either convince or to teach. This has been done with the guidance of the Holy Spirit: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/4518e05509523f1c? Take what has been written to heart or leave it. "No one is convinced through argument but by ME." -- Holy Spirit Amen ! Laus Deo ! Marana tha ! May GOD continue to heal our hearts, dear brother Chuck whom I love unconditionally. Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love, Andrew <>< -- Andrew B. Chung Cardiologist, Atlanta, Georgia, USA http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit As for knowing who are the very elect, these you will know by the unconditional love they have for everyone including their enemies (Matthew 5:44-45, 1 Corinthians 13:3, James 2:14-17). http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/d3b7b57d0fbf89ed? It seems to me I heard somewhere that Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote in article <1156502047.620604.276100@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>: >Our LORD's purpose for me here remains to inform and not to either >convince or to teach. Well, you're doing great with the not convincing and not teaching, but so far you're falling a little short in the informing part. SignatureDon Kirkman > It seems to me I heard somewhere that Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote in > article <1156502047.620604.276100@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Well, you're doing great with the not convincing and not teaching, but > so far you're falling a little short in the informing part. Without the LORD, your opinions are meaningless (Ecclesiastes). May GOD continue to heal your heart, dear neighbor Don whom I love unconditionally. Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love, Andrew <>< -- Andrew B. Chung Cardiologist, Atlanta, Georgia, USA http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit As for knowing who are the very elect, these you will know by the unconditional love they have for everyone including their enemies (Matthew 5:44-45, 1 Corinthians 13:3, James 2:14-17). http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/d3b7b57d0fbf89ed? >> <read, understood, appreciated, and snipped> > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Take what has been written to heart or leave it. Then I'll have to leave it, Andrew, and recommend that others do likewise if the situation arises where that would be the appropriate thing to do. The particular false belief that you hold to here (i.e., that non-cognitive beings can make choices and sin), while *obviously* false, apparently does you personally no critical spiritual harm. So I'm am not concerned about you. If that's what you believe, and you're strongly convinced it's true, then that's the way things are. But false beliefs can spiritually harm others, severely harm them, so perhaps it would be a good example of loving unconditionally if you kept this particular belief to yourself; especially since this belief has no direct bearing on the message of salvation and saving faith in God through His Son, Jesus Christ. God bless Chuck Stamford > Andrew wrote: > >> <read, understood, appreciated, and snipped> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Then I'll have to leave it, Andrew, and recommend that others do likewise if > the situation arises where that would be the appropriate thing to do. That would be your choice. We each retain the free will that HE has generously given us. > The particular false belief that you hold to here (i.e., that non-cognitive > beings can make choices and sin), while *obviously* false, apparently does > you personally no critical spiritual harm. This understanding from the Holy Spirit is not false. Personally, this understanding from the Holy Spirit has strengthened and encouraged me because GOD now appears more awesome and not less. The souls of mountains, planets, stars, galaxies must obey HIM ! ! ! GOD's love keeps them all alive. GOD's love is the unified field law that Einstein sought but never found. > So I'm am not concerned about > you. If that's what you believe, and you're strongly convinced it's true, > then that's the way things are. Most assuredly without doubt, I know the truth for HE is our LORD and HE is kind, just, and right. > But false beliefs can spiritually harm others, severely harm them, so > perhaps it would be a good example of loving unconditionally if you kept > this particular belief to yourself; especially since this belief has no > direct bearing on the message of salvation and saving faith in God through > His Son, Jesus Christ. Actually, this understanding from the Holy Spirit does have a direct bearing on the message of salvation and saving faith in GOD through HIS Son, LORD Jesus Christ because it was provided in response to a direct challenge from an atheist who asked the simple question: "Why did Jesus curse the fig tree for not bearing fruit out-of-season as described in Mark 11:12-14?" If you believe the understanding provided by the Holy Spirit is false, then you should justify your belief by providing an alternative understanding that you hold up to be true. May GOD continue to heal our hearts, dear brother Chuck whom I love unconditionally. Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love, Andrew <>< -- Andrew B. Chung Cardiologist, Atlanta, Georgia, USA http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit As for knowing who are the very elect, these you will know by the unconditional love they have for everyone including their enemies (Matthew 5:44-45, 1 Corinthians 13:3, James 2:14-17). http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/d3b7b57d0fbf89ed? >> Andrew wrote: >> >> <read, understood, appreciated, and snipped> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > This understanding from the Holy Spirit is not false. It's your understanding that its from the Holy Spirit, Andrew, and THAT understanding can be, and I believe in this particular case is, false. > Personally, this understanding from the Holy Spirit has strengthened > and encouraged me because GOD now appears more awesome and not less. And if that's all that it does to you and for you, then praise God. I'd be the last person in the world to try and dissuade you in it. Unfortunately, the way in which God has designed us, we don't hold very many beliefs in a "stand alone" status. Our beliefs have an awesomely intricate relationship to each other, one in which the vast majority of them we hold to be true form the basis for a whole string of other beliefs we hold to be true as well. We hold beliefs in a "structure", Andrew, and it is my fear that this false belief of yours acts, or will act, or can act, as the basis for other beliefs you hold, or will come to hold. And you cannot base a true belief on one that is false. That is logically impossible. So this one false belief could (and I stress "could" here) become the basis for a whole string of false beliefs, one or more of which very well could cause you spiritual harm, if not now, then in the future. That is my real concern here. > The souls of mountains, planets, stars, galaxies must obey HIM ! ! ! But this statement directly contradicts what you've already said about the fig tree "choosing" to disobey God! Can't you see that, Andrew?? If they "must" obey, then they have no choice to obey. And if they can choose to obey or not, then they must not have to obey. Now either you're not expressing this belief very well as the Holy Spirit has given it to you, or the Holy Spirit hasn't given it to you despite what you believe to the contrary, because one thing is for sure: God doesn't contradict Himself! > GOD's love keeps them all alive. GOD's love is the unified field law > that Einstein sought but never found. But Einstein wasn't looking for a field theory to explain why everything is "alive", Andrew. He was seeking to explain why everything "exists". As a doctor, you should well understand the difference. The truth here is that you've got nothing to support your belief that everything has a soul, and is alive in some sense (that remains completely unexplained or described by you). Nothing out of God's word the Bible. Nothing from any human inquiry into the nature of the universe. Nothing...but you're naked assertion that it's true despite all the evidence there is to the contrary. >> So I'm am not concerned about >> you. If that's what you believe, and you're strongly convinced it's [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Most assuredly without doubt, I know the truth for HE is our LORD and > HE is kind, just, and right. But on that basis so do I, Andrew. >> But false beliefs can spiritually harm others, severely harm them, so >> perhaps it would be a good example of loving unconditionally if you kept [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > then you should justify your belief by providing an alternative > understanding that you hold up to be true. First of all, I DON'T believe that the understanding provided by the Holy Spirit is false. I believe your PRESENT understanding of it is false. So let's keep that huge distinction straight, okay? And I believe the Holy Spirit doesn't send us special understandings about a passage of Scripture when He has already put the correct understanding within the context of that passage, as is the case with Mark 11. So let's look at all that Jesus has to say there: "No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever." Mark 11:14 (KJV) "Have faith in God. 23 For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith. 24 Therefore I say unto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them. " Mark 11:22-24 (KJV) Now the second speech is in direct response to the disciples inquiry about the withered fig tree. When we realize that, and look at this second speech, we begin to see that the situation doesn't have anything to do with Jesus being displeased at the fig tree not having any figs, or His punishment of the fig tree. How petty must we view Jesus to understand a theme like that in the pericope?? He created the universe out of love, and being omniscient, knew for all eternity that this particular fig tree wouldn't have any figs when He came to it in time and space looking for figs, and kills a fig tree because it didn't satisfy His hunger pangs??? That's nonesense, Andrew. No, the second speech of Jesus explains the entire affair, and it is put there, and preserved for us today BY the Holy Spirit...if we believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God. And as we examine Jesus' speech there, we see He is teaching on the power of faith, not about Divine justice, or fig trees having souls and making free will choices, or anything else. It's about faith, pure and simple, and we miss the lesson when we start reading into it additional ideas that the Holy Spirit never put there. I hope this is of help to you. I present it to you in that hope. God bless Chuck Stamford > "Andrew wrote: > >> Andrew wrote: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > That would be your choice. We each retain the free will that HE has > > generously given us. It is now clear that your actual choice is different from your stated choice and different from the two choices that I offered you. > >> The particular false belief that you hold to here (i.e., that > >> non-cognitive [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > It's your understanding that its from the Holy Spirit, Andrew, and THAT > understanding can be, and I believe in this particular case is, false. When two believers disagree about who is being guided by the Holy Spirit, the one that says s/he is in the Holy Spirit is the one guided by HIM. In the Spirit, this understanding comes from HIM. > > Personally, this understanding from the Holy Spirit has strengthened > > and encouraged me because GOD now appears more awesome and not less. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the way in which God has designed us, we don't hold very many beliefs in a > "stand alone" status. No such thing as either fortunately or unfortunately when there is no fortune (Proverbs 16:33). > Our beliefs have an awesomely intricate relationship > to each other, one in which the vast majority of them we hold to be true [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > of false beliefs, one or more of which very well could cause you spiritual > harm, if not now, then in the future. That is my real concern here. It is clear you rely more on your logic and cognitive abilities than the counsel of the Holy Spirit. > > The souls of mountains, planets, stars, galaxies must obey HIM ! ! ! > > But this statement directly contradicts what you've already said about the > fig tree "choosing" to disobey God! Can't you see that, Andrew?? What I see is obedience as an expression of free will. Indeed, obedience is proof of free will. Although GOD is sovereign so that all souls must obey HIM or receive the wages of sin... at the present time, there are souls that have made the choice to disobey HIM and that they still exist speaks to GOD's infinite mercy and grace. Now folks should understand why all things have to be made new... ... for it is written that after the LORD's day of judgment when unrepentent souls are judged and destroyed, there will be a new heaven, a new earth, and a new Jerusalem. > If they "must" obey, then they have no choice to obey. Where there is free will there is choice. It remains GOD's infinite will that all souls retain HIS generous gift of free will. > And if they can choose to obey or not, then they must not have to obey. Your logic fails you here. Think of a parent telling a child that s/he must obey. Has this parent taken away the child's free will upon issuing the command of obedience? No, of course not. Analogously, all souls retain their free will even when obedience is commanded by GOD. > Now either you're not expressing this belief very well as the Holy Spirit > has given it to you, or the Holy Spirit hasn't given it to you despite what > you believe to the contrary, because one thing is for sure: God doesn't > contradict Himself! or you are having difficulty understanding what has been plainly written. This latter explanation is more plausible because you did demonstrate a misunderstanding of my writing... "Would concur with what you have written." ... to mean disagreement: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/5e083849014dcd6b? > > GOD's love keeps them all alive. GOD's love is the unified field law > > that Einstein sought but never found. > > But Einstein wasn't looking for a field theory to explain why everything is > "alive", Andrew. He was seeking to explain why everything "exists". With the death of their respective souls, GOD's creations would cease to exist. > As a doctor, you should well understand the difference. As a scientist, I know that the distinction between life and existence is blurred at the level of virus particles so that extrapolation of this lack of distinction to souls is possible. > The truth here is that you've got nothing to support your belief that > everything has a soul, and is alive in some sense (that remains completely > unexplained or described by you). Nothing out of God's word the Bible. Actually, all Biblical references to LORD Jesus Christ being able to command things (trees, fish, stones, water, sky, mountains) to obey HIM support the understanding that these things have soul and free will even if technically some are not "alive" in the usual sense of the word. > Nothing from any human inquiry into the nature of the universe. Actually, from the personal experience of interacting with animals, having observed their obedience and love for their owners, it is clear each have soul and free will. Moreover, there have been scientific evidence that plants are "aware" of their surroundings responding to music and love by growing more vigorously. > Nothing...but you're naked assertion that it's true despite all the evidence > there is to the contrary. You are straying from the truth here. Recently, President Bush asserted that having the U.S. pull out of Iraq now would mean death for America's soul. And, so our nation's president has a sense that our nation has a soul. Indeed, disobeying GOD is sin for a soul ... ... and it is written that the wages of sin is death (for a soul). > >> So I'm am not concerned about > >> you. If that's what you believe, and you're strongly convinced it's [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > But on that basis so do I, Andrew. Yet, you have been straying from the truth in what you have written. > >> But false beliefs can spiritually harm others, severely harm them, so > >> perhaps it would be a good example of loving unconditionally if you kept [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Spirit is false. I believe your PRESENT understanding of it is false. So > let's keep that huge distinction straight, okay? There is no distinction for those in the Holy Spirit. See above. > And I believe the Holy Spirit doesn't send us special understandings about a > passage of Scripture when He has already put the correct understanding [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > else. It's about faith, pure and simple, and we miss the lesson when we > start reading into it additional ideas that the Holy Spirit never put there. You have not answered the question: "Why did Jesus curse the fig tree for not bearing fruit out-of-season as described in Mark 11:12-14?" > I hope this is of help to you. I present it to you in that hope. You remind me of Job's friends. They also meant well. May GOD continue to heal our hearts, dear brother Chuck whom I love unconditionally. Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love, Andrew <>< -- Andrew B. Chung Cardiologist, Atlanta, Georgia, USA http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit As for knowing who are the very elect, these you will know by the unconditional love they have for everyone including their enemies (Matthew 5:44-45, 1 Corinthians 13:3, James 2:14-17). http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/d3b7b57d0fbf89ed? > >> >> Are you sure you're not just trying to stir up trouble by making a > >> >> mountain > >> >> out of a mole hill? Well obviously. It's much impressive if faith can be shown to move mountains, instead of molehills. > I don't think he was the "only" one. Scripture tells us of a "war" that > took place in heaven when Satan fell from grace, and that he took a "third" > of all the angels God created with him in that war, But you can't expect Andrew the Dishonest to know that. He reads only those part of scripture which suits his own warped view of the Lord, and ignores anything he finds inconvenient. > Andrew, the text doesn't tell us that the tree of the knowledge of good and > evil was a fig tree, nor does it tell us that the fig leaves Adam and Eve > sewed together to cover their "nakedness" after their sin came from that > tree. What you're doing here is working off an inference from the text, not > the text itself. I told you so :-) > And it's entirely possible > that that poor little fig tree wasn't producing any fruit, not because of > its own sin, but because of the sin of Adam, whom God had (before his sin > and fall from grace) given dominion over His creation. So just as Adam's > sin rebounds to us because we all come "out of" Adam, so to it rebounds to > all creation because all creation was under Adam's dominion when he sinned. Man kind proceeds from Adam and Eve but nothing else does no plant no animal. Every plant and animal has it's own master copy in the garden of eden. When God cursed Adam he cursed all the males of man when he cursed Eve he cursed all the females of man when he cursed the snake he cursed all snakes both male and female. The result all the males of man struggle to survive (unless their sinning). All the females of man have painful child birth (unless they sin) and their desire is to control their man. And of course all snakes male and female lost their legs. The point is look around the animal kindom and I see no male animals struggling to survive and I see no female animals having painful child birth. Man alone would find it difficult to survive in the wilderness without all his modern tools knife, gun, shovel, axe, etc. Man still has dominion over the animals you see that in your dog and cat and horse etc, but that's something completely different. And of course the dominion we enjoy over the animals is subject to the post flood curse when God put the fear of man in to all animals. Which means now man first has to tame or reduce the fear of the animal of man in order to have dominion over it. The green tree is likely a metaphor for earth and Lucifer's rule as being on fruitful. Luke 23:31 For if they do these things in a green tree, what shall be done in the dry? >> And it's entirely possible >> that that poor little fig tree wasn't producing any fruit, not because of [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > For if they do these things in a green tree, what shall be done in the > dry? Well that's certainly one way to look at it. However, it isn't without it's serious problems. For example, it's just not true that man has dominion *now* over all the animals. Under the right circumstances a lot of these animals will *eat* man! There are certainly a good number of domesticated animals to be sure, but compared to all the animals there are on earth, it's really a very small ratio, don't you think? In any case, domesticated animals don't give us grounds for a generalization about man still having dominion over everything on earth that is alive (had a "cold" this year?), which is what Genesis 1 is speaking about at the very minimum. And I'm not confident that Genesis *is* speaking only about what is alive in chapter 1. I know that is all that's specifically expressed by the text, but a lot of the language in Genesis is poetic metaphor, and it may very well be the case that all of the world; the ground, the rocks, the air, and everything alive, were given to Adam and Eve to have dominion over. What we may be being told in Genesis 1:28-30 is that God, who had a rightful dominion over all creation as its Creator, ceded, of His own free will, and out of His amazing love for His creatures Adam and Eve, an important part of that dominion over an important part of that creation. And if there is any truth to this understanding of that passage at all, it would help explain those passages in the Bible that speak as if Christ redeemed not only all of mankind, but all of creation. As I see it, the passing of "dominion" over God's creation possibly goes like this: 1.) God has this dominion inherently as creation's Creator 2.) God grants to man this dominion over His creation out of His love for man. 3.) Man unwittingly cedes his dominion over creation to Satan when he chooses to put his trust in something other than God. 4.) Christ, as the "God-man", and by His sacrificial love demonstrated on the cross, and testified to in the Resurrection, redeems creation from Satan, returning it to God *and* man so long as man walks by faith in Christ. 5.) Eventually, in God's perfect time, Christ returns to take full possession of what He has redeemed. As for the parable of the fig tree having any direct connection to Luke 23:31, I can't see it. I do see that you seem to understand that in some sense the Bible tells us that Satan (Lucifer isn't his name anymore according to Scripture) rules on the earth, which means he got the right to rule from somewhere, which points to it possibly being something similar to #3 above...probably the most difficult of the five to adequately support out of Scripture. God bless Chuck Stamford > > > When it was mentioned that three false doctrines were being taught we > > > got the response: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > doctrine rather than through HIS Word with the counsel of the Holy > Spirit. Woe unto thee, O thou babbling Assyrian, for you will be taunted by the king's concubines! -Panama Floyd, Atl. aa#2015, Member Knights of BAAWA! EAC Martian Commander "..the prayer cloth of one aeon is the doormat of the next." -Mark Twain Religious societies are *less* moral than secular ones: http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html |
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
|
©2008 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.