clinton surgery question

MU wrote:

There is no event in human history that can be accurately traced to the
direct intervention of God.

LOL That "accurately" is the kicker, huh? Chung says that there's a
lot that can be and he says he's a scientist. It looks to me, and I
certainly don't want to create a situation with you and your
cardiotrician, but you're saying he's dead wrong. That makes it pretty
much unanimous.

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 16:56:23 -0400, Happy Dog wrote:

Cool. So you don't take the bible literally? You do not believe that the
events it described ever happened?

All of the OT?NT literally? No way. It is historically inaccurate

More "truth discernment" in action? Chung still insists that the Flood
happened and that it covered the entire world 15 cubits deep, even Mt
Everest where they only eat 2 pounds of food a day. LOL He insists
that there's geological evidence that this is so. Scientific American
disagrees and offers lengthy citations and references. Chung merely
says, "I discern it to be so."

It's wonderfully funny watching him pee on his big, floppy shoes.

and many
times contradictory from author to author.

Yet you think it's the word of God. Chung says it's absolutely true
(even while weaseling his way around the "inconsistencies"). "Author
to author" hmmm Sounds like a lot of different people wrote it. People.

Do I believe that the Egyptian
calamities in Moses times happened. Perhaps.

But I don't care. Teaching is about the lesson derived not the text read.

What sorts of lessons proceed from the Song of Solomon?

"Lesson" you say. But so much of it is in parables and cryptic
notions. What happens when 50 equally serious people come away with
different "lessons" from the same passages?

What a perfectly silly thing to offer as the only basis for the
bible's value. Read some history and see how it came to be. And where
the stories came from. And it really is funny that you try to divorce
the words from their meaning as though meaning is somehow independent
of the means of its expression. But I don't expect you to understand
this. It's too complex an idea for your pretty, curly head.

Here's five bucks, buy yourself something frilly.

Bob

"MU" wrote in message
There is no event in human history that can be accurately traced to the
direct intervention of God.

Cool. So you don't take the bible literally? You do not believe that
the
events it described ever happened?

All of the OT?NT literally? No way. It is historically inaccurate and many
times contradictory from author to author.

What happened Easter morning?

Do I believe that the Egyptian
calamities in Moses times happened. Perhaps.

But I don't care. Teaching is about the lesson derived not the text read.

So you sort of believe it? Except for the bit about god having a hand in
it? Or sort of? Or not?

m

"MU" wrote in message
On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 01:08:33 GMT, Luna wrote:

How do you decide which parts you believe in, and which parts you don't?
I
believe the bible is literally true, except for the parts about God and
Jesus.

I let God drive that car, Luna. That is a component and a "perk" of faith.
It's not always clear and straightforward but God has promised to give me
whatever I need, not what I want, in the way of understanding. To date,
He's done good.

Meaning what? You're not dying of a horrible disease? You're loved ones
are OK? For the faithful in the opposite situation, and they exist, you
idiot, is god "doing good"?

moo

"MU" wrote in message
On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 01:08:33 GMT, Luna wrote:

How do you decide which parts you believe in, and which parts you don't?
I
believe the bible is literally true, except for the parts about God and
Jesus.

I let God drive that car, Luna. That is a component and a "perk" of faith.
It's not always clear and straightforward but God has promised to give me
whatever I need, not what I want, in the way of understanding. To date,
He's done good.

Meaning what? You're not dying of a horrible disease? You're loved ones
are OK? For the faithful in the opposite situation, and they exist, you
idiot, is god "doing good"?

moo

"MU" wrote in
On 24 Sep 2004 14:17:26 -0700, Steve Harris

But whenever
nonbelievers wonder why a compassionate and omnipotent god doesn't DO
any of these things (give Ted Bundy polio or John Wayne Gacy a
paralyzing spinal tumor or something) it's always the believers who
chime in to say that this use of force would remove free agency.

You sum all believers into one enveloping statement; that makes your
"coment" untrue.

Nope. On this there is little dissent among the faithful. Including you.

moo

"MU" wrote in
On 24 Sep 2004 14:17:26 -0700, Steve Harris

But whenever
nonbelievers wonder why a compassionate and omnipotent god doesn't DO
any of these things (give Ted Bundy polio or John Wayne Gacy a
paralyzing spinal tumor or something) it's always the believers who
chime in to say that this use of force would remove free agency.

You sum all believers into one enveloping statement; that makes your
"coment" untrue.

Nope. On this there is little dissent among the faithful. Including you.

moo

MU wrote in message . ..

Your making up the rules, Steven, no getting around that.

COMMENT:

Einstein might know enough to use the correct spelling "you're," too.
Though it's true his English was insecure, it being his third or
fourth language.

Retreats to points about spelling, typos, grammar and such, are the
last refuge of the loser in logic. But if you insist on playing down
at the dirty details, I can do that, too. You'll lose.

SBH

MU wrote in message . ..

Your making up the rules, Steven, no getting around that.

COMMENT:

Einstein might know enough to use the correct spelling "you're," too.
Though it's true his English was insecure, it being his third or
fourth language.

Retreats to points about spelling, typos, grammar and such, are the
last refuge of the loser in logic. But if you insist on playing down
at the dirty details, I can do that, too. You'll lose.

SBH

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 20:08:35 -0400, Happy Dog wrote:

You said that reward and punishment are not meted out in the afterlife. (I
said this was an assumption and you said it was incorrect.)

Never said that.



One can be
skeptical without the need to know; you confuse "desire to know" with need
to know. I desire to know, and will, someday but I have no need to know
until then. God's Plan.

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 20:08:35 -0400, Happy Dog wrote:

A skeptic who doesn't need to ask questions? How cute.

I ask questions. Read more carefully.

So much for skepticism. Anyone with a skeptical bone would ask why
Christian adherents are in the minority. But you just don't care to know.

Correct. Lemmings running off cliffs are in the majority at that time. A
better question is why is it that you find the need to be in the majority
to be right?

God lets me know what He feels I need to know. Faith not right thinking
opens that channel of knowledge.

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 20:08:35 -0400, Happy Dog wrote:

So why do people of different
faiths get different messages? How do you know that yours is true?

Satan has his hand in this world for one. I know mine is true because God
has been kind enough to reaffirm me with increasing amounts of faith and
comfort in His Plan.

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 20:08:35 -0400, Happy Dog wrote:

So when I ask you to show us, in
detail, exactly what the no-**** teachings are that eclipse all the
other
no-**** teachings of other gods, you'll put it in a succint and
credible
form. Not.

I don't know what a "no ****" teaching is. Try again. No ****, please do.

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 20:08:35 -0400, Happy Dog wrote:

Yes you do mu mu. It's the real version of universal reality that the
faithful, oops, Christian faithful, understand. But, like I said, can't
explain in a rational way to skeptics or non-believers.

Difficult to explain something to someone who hasn't the tools to
understand. And you won't get those tools from God until you ask for them.

See above regarding drinking.

Gee MU, you've really seized on this particular insult. Projecting
perhaps?

Projecting what? You post like you are imbibed, that's all.

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 20:08:35 -0400, Happy Dog wrote:

Occasionally. Better than drunk on Jesus.

How would you know?

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 20:08:35 -0400, Happy Dog wrote:

You said that reward and punishment are not meted out in the afterlife. (I
said this was an assumption and you said it was incorrect.)

Never said that.



One can be
skeptical without the need to know; you confuse "desire to know" with need
to know. I desire to know, and will, someday but I have no need to know
until then. God's Plan.

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 20:08:35 -0400, Happy Dog wrote:

A skeptic who doesn't need to ask questions? How cute.

I ask questions. Read more carefully.

So much for skepticism. Anyone with a skeptical bone would ask why
Christian adherents are in the minority. But you just don't care to know.

Correct. Lemmings running off cliffs are in the majority at that time. A
better question is why is it that you find the need to be in the majority
to be right?

God lets me know what He feels I need to know. Faith not right thinking
opens that channel of knowledge.

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 20:08:35 -0400, Happy Dog wrote:

So why do people of different
faiths get different messages? How do you know that yours is true?

Satan has his hand in this world for one. I know mine is true because God
has been kind enough to reaffirm me with increasing amounts of faith and
comfort in His Plan.

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 20:08:35 -0400, Happy Dog wrote:

So when I ask you to show us, in
detail, exactly what the no-**** teachings are that eclipse all the
other
no-**** teachings of other gods, you'll put it in a succint and
credible
form. Not.

I don't know what a "no ****" teaching is. Try again. No ****, please do.

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 20:08:35 -0400, Happy Dog wrote:

Yes you do mu mu. It's the real version of universal reality that the
faithful, oops, Christian faithful, understand. But, like I said, can't
explain in a rational way to skeptics or non-believers.

Difficult to explain something to someone who hasn't the tools to
understand. And you won't get those tools from God until you ask for them.

See above regarding drinking.

Gee MU, you've really seized on this particular insult. Projecting
perhaps?

Projecting what? You post like you are imbibed, that's all.

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 20:08:35 -0400, Happy Dog wrote:

Occasionally. Better than drunk on Jesus.

How would you know?