https://www.reddit.com/r/LockdownSkepticism/comments/1fh603p/how_the_new_york_times_stoked_covid_alarmism/

A Bias for Panic
How the New York Times stoked Covid alarmism

/ Eye on the News / Health Care
Sep 10 2024
/ Share
A 2018 Gallup poll found that 62 percent of Americans believe the media
is biased. Did such bias affect coverage of the Covid-19 pandemic? I run
a research team in the department of epidemiology at the University of
California–San Francisco. In our report, the first to analyze a
newspaper systematically, we found significant evidence of bias in the
New York Times, considered by some to be the newspaper of record, on
pandemic coverage—skewed toward overstating the threat posed by the virus.

Our study examined all corrections issued by the New York Times to
articles relating to the Covid-19 pandemic. Between 2020 and 2024, the
newspaper issued 576 corrections for 486 articles. Naturally, in times
of crisis, facing uncertain and evolving information, reporters will get
facts wrong. Sometimes they may, for instance, over- or underreport the
number of children who have died or misstate the effectiveness of
interventions like lockdowns. If news organizations are unbiased, one
would expect such errors to occur with relatively equal frequency.

That’s not what we found. Instead, the paper’s errors tended to
exaggerate the harm of the virus (or the effectiveness of
interventions). Corrections were made for such errors nearly twice as
frequently as for errors that downplayed harms. Fifty-five percent of
errors overstated the harm of the virus, while only 24 percent
understated (the rest were equivocal). In other words, when the New York
Times got things wrong, it tended to do so in a way that falsely stoked
fear and encouraged harmful social restrictions.

In October 2021, a particularly notable correction read as
follows—inviting questions as to how such a remarkable mistake could
make it into print at all:

An article on Thursday . . . misstated the number of Covid
hospitalizations in U.S. children. It is more than 63,000 from August
2020 to October 2021, not 900,000 since the beginning of the pandemic.

Glad they could straighten that out.

Not all reporters were equally culpable; some required more corrections
than others. One in particular, Apoorva Mandavilli, was responsible for
7 percent of all corrections. When the “science and global health
reporter” erred, she tended to exaggerate the risk of the virus:

This same reporter is known for inserting her feelings into her content.
In 2021, she tweeted the following: “Someday we will stop talking about
the lab leak theory and maybe even admit its racist roots. But alas,
that day is not yet here.” To my knowledge, the New York Times has not
reassigned any reporter on the Covid-19 beat for getting things
wrong—even when those errors appear to be byproducts of the author’s
underlying prejudice.

Over the last few years, the newspaper has faced more scrutiny of its
ideologically skewed coverage. Opinion editor James Bennet, dismissed
for publishing an op-ed by Senator Tom Cotton in the summer of 2020,
wrote a lengthy article in the Economist documenting how progressive
ideology has captured the newsroom. Don McNeil was dismissed as chief
science reporter for comments he had made years before. McNeil, it's
worth noting, was open to the possibility of the lab-leak theory, having
published essays that reignited mainstream interest in the subject—in
contrast with his successor, Mandavilli.

In any event, the newspaper’s distortions are skewed in the same
direction as its political bias. When it came to Covid-19, Republicans
tended to be more skeptical of sweeping governmental and public-health
interventions like lockdowns, masking young children, and closing
schools, and more concerned about their negative consequences. Florida
governor Ron DeSantis reopened his state’s schools in the spring of
2020, against the advice of experts like Anthony Fauci, and opposed
masking kids. Democrats, meantime, came to embrace stronger government
policies, such as vaccine mandates. The Biden administration enforced
the masking of toddlers in Head Start programs. The New York Times’s
tilt on these matters appeared consistent with its traditional political
sympathies.

It should concern all of us that legacy media displayed such a strong
bias during an unprecedented pandemic. Perhaps our research can prompt
an internal audit at the Times to assess the paper’s role in
intensifying fear and legitimizing harmful social policies. At a
minimum, newspapers should implement more substantive checks and
balances to ensure more balanced coverage—and avoid unduly promoting
panic the next time a crisis strikes.

Michael Ejercito wrote:

>https://www.reddit.com/r/LockdownSkepticism/comments/1fh603p/how_the_new_york_times_stoked_covid_alarmism/
>
>
>A Bias for Panic
>How the New York Times stoked Covid alarmism
>
>/ Eye on the News / Health Care
>Sep 10 2024
>/ Share
>A 2018 Gallup poll found that 62 percent of Americans believe the media
>is biased. Did such bias affect coverage of the Covid-19 pandemic? I run
>a research team in the department of epidemiology at the University of
>California–San Francisco. In our report, the first to analyze a
>newspaper systematically, we found significant evidence of bias in the
>New York Times, considered by some to be the newspaper of record, on
>pandemic coverage—skewed toward overstating the threat posed by the virus.
>
>Our study examined all corrections issued by the New York Times to
>articles relating to the Covid-19 pandemic. Between 2020 and 2024, the
>newspaper issued 576 corrections for 486 articles. Naturally, in times
>of crisis, facing uncertain and evolving information, reporters will get
>facts wrong. Sometimes they may, for instance, over- or underreport the
>number of children who have died or misstate the effectiveness of
>interventions like lockdowns. If news organizations are unbiased, one
>would expect such errors to occur with relatively equal frequency.
>
>That’s not what we found. Instead, the paper’s errors tended to
>exaggerate the harm of the virus (or the effectiveness of
>interventions). Corrections were made for such errors nearly twice as
>frequently as for errors that downplayed harms. Fifty-five percent of
>errors overstated the harm of the virus, while only 24 percent
>understated (the rest were equivocal). In other words, when the New York
>Times got things wrong, it tended to do so in a way that falsely stoked
>fear and encouraged harmful social restrictions.
>
>In October 2021, a particularly notable correction read as
>follows—inviting questions as to how such a remarkable mistake could
>make it into print at all:
>
>An article on Thursday . . . misstated the number of Covid
>hospitalizations in U.S. children. It is more than 63,000 from August
>2020 to October 2021, not 900,000 since the beginning of the pandemic.
>
>Glad they could straighten that out.
>
>Not all reporters were equally culpable; some required more corrections
>than others. One in particular, Apoorva Mandavilli, was responsible for
>7 percent of all corrections. When the “science and global health
>reporter” erred, she tended to exaggerate the risk of the virus:
>
>
>This same reporter is known for inserting her feelings into her content.
>In 2021, she tweeted the following: “Someday we will stop talking about
>the lab leak theory and maybe even admit its racist roots. But alas,
>that day is not yet here.” To my knowledge, the New York Times has not
>reassigned any reporter on the Covid-19 beat for getting things
>wrong—even when those errors appear to be byproducts of the author’s
>underlying prejudice.
>
>Over the last few years, the newspaper has faced more scrutiny of its
>ideologically skewed coverage. Opinion editor James Bennet, dismissed
>for publishing an op-ed by Senator Tom Cotton in the summer of 2020,
>wrote a lengthy article in the Economist documenting how progressive
>ideology has captured the newsroom. Don McNeil was dismissed as chief
>science reporter for comments he had made years before. McNeil, it's
>worth noting, was open to the possibility of the lab-leak theory, having
>published essays that reignited mainstream interest in the subject—in
>contrast with his successor, Mandavilli.
>
>In any event, the newspaper’s distortions are skewed in the same
>direction as its political bias. When it came to Covid-19, Republicans
>tended to be more skeptical of sweeping governmental and public-health
>interventions like lockdowns, masking young children, and closing
>schools, and more concerned about their negative consequences. Florida
>governor Ron DeSantis reopened his state’s schools in the spring of
>2020, against the advice of experts like Anthony Fauci, and opposed
>masking kids. Democrats, meantime, came to embrace stronger government
>policies, such as vaccine mandates. The Biden administration enforced
>the masking of toddlers in Head Start programs. The New York Times’s
>tilt on these matters appeared consistent with its traditional political
>sympathies.
>
>It should concern all of us that legacy media displayed such a strong
>bias during an unprecedented pandemic. Perhaps our research can prompt
>an internal audit at the Times to assess the paper’s role in
>intensifying fear and legitimizing harmful social policies. At a
>minimum, newspapers should implement more substantive checks and
>balances to ensure more balanced coverage—and avoid unduly promoting
>panic the next time a crisis strikes.

In the interim, we are 100% prepared/protected in the "full armor of
GOD" (Ephesians 6:11) which we put on as soon as we use Apostle Paul's
secret (Philippians 4:12). Though masking is less protective, it helps
us avoid the appearance of doing the evil of spreading airborne
pathogens while there are people getting sick because of not being
100% protected. It is written that we're to "abstain from **all**
appearance of doing evil" (1 Thessalonians 5:22 w/**emphasis**).

Meanwhile, the only *perfect* (Matt 5:47-8 ) way to eradicate the
COVID-19 virus, thereby saving lives, in the US & elsewhere is by
rapidly (i.e. use the "Rapid COVID-19 Test" ) finding out at any given
moment, including even while on-line, who among us are unwittingly
contagious (i.e pre-symptomatic or asymptomatic) in order to
"convince it forward" (John 15:12) for them to call their doctor and
self-quarantine per their doctor in hopes of stopping this pandemic.
Thus, we're hoping for the best while preparing for the worse-case
scenario of the Alpha lineage mutations and others like the Omicron,
Gamma, Beta, Epsilon, Iota, Lambda, Mu & Delta lineage mutations
combining via slip-RNA-replication to form hybrids like "Deltamicron"
that may render current COVID vaccines/monoclonals/medicines/pills no
longer effective.

Indeed, I am wonderfully hungry (
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.med.cardiology/c/6ZoE95d-VKc/m/14vVZoyOBgAJ
) and hope you, Michael, also have a healthy appetite too.

So how are you ?

(Apoorva) 09/15/24 Again not a LoosePeeledSeymourMemoryQuackBigot...

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.med.cardiology/c/Ai33hw5PINI/m/wytVpY68MwAJ

Instead be "woke" to the sin of racial prejudice:

https://tinyurl.com/JesusIsWoke (i.e. not a Nazi bigot) *and* risen!!!

HeartDoc Andrew wrote:
> Michael Ejercito wrote:
>
>> https://www.reddit.com/r/LockdownSkepticism/comments/1fh603p/how_the_new_york_times_stoked_covid_alarmism/
>>
>>
>> A Bias for Panic
>> How the New York Times stoked Covid alarmism
>>
>> / Eye on the News / Health Care
>> Sep 10 2024
>> / Share
>> A 2018 Gallup poll found that 62 percent of Americans believe the media
>> is biased. Did such bias affect coverage of the Covid-19 pandemic? I run
>> a research team in the department of epidemiology at the University of
>> California–San Francisco. In our report, the first to analyze a
>> newspaper systematically, we found significant evidence of bias in the
>> New York Times, considered by some to be the newspaper of record, on
>> pandemic coverage—skewed toward overstating the threat posed by the virus.
>>
>> Our study examined all corrections issued by the New York Times to
>> articles relating to the Covid-19 pandemic. Between 2020 and 2024, the
>> newspaper issued 576 corrections for 486 articles. Naturally, in times
>> of crisis, facing uncertain and evolving information, reporters will get
>> facts wrong. Sometimes they may, for instance, over- or underreport the
>> number of children who have died or misstate the effectiveness of
>> interventions like lockdowns. If news organizations are unbiased, one
>> would expect such errors to occur with relatively equal frequency.
>>
>> That’s not what we found. Instead, the paper’s errors tended to
>> exaggerate the harm of the virus (or the effectiveness of
>> interventions). Corrections were made for such errors nearly twice as
>> frequently as for errors that downplayed harms. Fifty-five percent of
>> errors overstated the harm of the virus, while only 24 percent
>> understated (the rest were equivocal). In other words, when the New York
>> Times got things wrong, it tended to do so in a way that falsely stoked
>> fear and encouraged harmful social restrictions.
>>
>> In October 2021, a particularly notable correction read as
>> follows—inviting questions as to how such a remarkable mistake could
>> make it into print at all:
>>
>> An article on Thursday . . . misstated the number of Covid
>> hospitalizations in U.S. children. It is more than 63,000 from August
>> 2020 to October 2021, not 900,000 since the beginning of the pandemic.
>>
>> Glad they could straighten that out.
>>
>> Not all reporters were equally culpable; some required more corrections
>> than others. One in particular, Apoorva Mandavilli, was responsible for
>> 7 percent of all corrections. When the “science and global health
>> reporter” erred, she tended to exaggerate the risk of the virus:
>>
>>
>> This same reporter is known for inserting her feelings into her content.
>> In 2021, she tweeted the following: “Someday we will stop talking about
>> the lab leak theory and maybe even admit its racist roots. But alas,
>> that day is not yet here.” To my knowledge, the New York Times has not
>> reassigned any reporter on the Covid-19 beat for getting things
>> wrong—even when those errors appear to be byproducts of the author’s
>> underlying prejudice.
>>
>> Over the last few years, the newspaper has faced more scrutiny of its
>> ideologically skewed coverage. Opinion editor James Bennet, dismissed
>> for publishing an op-ed by Senator Tom Cotton in the summer of 2020,
>> wrote a lengthy article in the Economist documenting how progressive
>> ideology has captured the newsroom. Don McNeil was dismissed as chief
>> science reporter for comments he had made years before. McNeil, it's
>> worth noting, was open to the possibility of the lab-leak theory, having
>> published essays that reignited mainstream interest in the subject—in
>> contrast with his successor, Mandavilli.
>>
>> In any event, the newspaper’s distortions are skewed in the same
>> direction as its political bias. When it came to Covid-19, Republicans
>> tended to be more skeptical of sweeping governmental and public-health
>> interventions like lockdowns, masking young children, and closing
>> schools, and more concerned about their negative consequences. Florida
>> governor Ron DeSantis reopened his state’s schools in the spring of
>> 2020, against the advice of experts like Anthony Fauci, and opposed
>> masking kids. Democrats, meantime, came to embrace stronger government
>> policies, such as vaccine mandates. The Biden administration enforced
>> the masking of toddlers in Head Start programs. The New York Times’s
>> tilt on these matters appeared consistent with its traditional political
>> sympathies.
>>
>> It should concern all of us that legacy media displayed such a strong
>> bias during an unprecedented pandemic. Perhaps our research can prompt
>> an internal audit at the Times to assess the paper’s role in
>> intensifying fear and legitimizing harmful social policies. At a
>> minimum, newspapers should implement more substantive checks and
>> balances to ensure more balanced coverage—and avoid unduly promoting
>> panic the next time a crisis strikes.
>
> In the interim, we are 100% prepared/protected in the "full armor of
> GOD" (Ephesians 6:11) which we put on as soon as we use Apostle Paul's
> secret (Philippians 4:12). Though masking is less protective, it helps
> us avoid the appearance of doing the evil of spreading airborne
> pathogens while there are people getting sick because of not being
> 100% protected. It is written that we're to "abstain from **all**
> appearance of doing evil" (1 Thessalonians 5:22 w/**emphasis**).
>
> Meanwhile, the only *perfect* (Matt 5:47-8 ) way to eradicate the
> COVID-19 virus, thereby saving lives, in the US & elsewhere is by
> rapidly (i.e. use the "Rapid COVID-19 Test" ) finding out at any given
> moment, including even while on-line, who among us are unwittingly
> contagious (i.e pre-symptomatic or asymptomatic) in order to
> "convince it forward" (John 15:12) for them to call their doctor and
> self-quarantine per their doctor in hopes of stopping this pandemic.
> Thus, we're hoping for the best while preparing for the worse-case
> scenario of the Alpha lineage mutations and others like the Omicron,
> Gamma, Beta, Epsilon, Iota, Lambda, Mu & Delta lineage mutations
> combining via slip-RNA-replication to form hybrids like "Deltamicron"
> that may render current COVID vaccines/monoclonals/medicines/pills no
> longer effective.
>
> Indeed, I am wonderfully hungry (
> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.med.cardiology/c/6ZoE95d-VKc/m/14vVZoyOBgAJ
> ) and hope you, Michael, also have a healthy appetite too.
>
> So how are you ?
>
I am wonderfully hungry!

Michael

Michael Ejercito wrote:
> HeartDoc Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>> Michael Ejercito wrote:
>>
>>> https://www.reddit.com/r/LockdownSkepticism/comments/1fh603p/how_the_new_york_times_stoked_covid_alarmism/
>>>
>>>
>>> A Bias for Panic
>>> How the New York Times stoked Covid alarmism
>>>
>>> / Eye on the News / Health Care
>>> Sep 10 2024
>>> / Share
>>> A 2018 Gallup poll found that 62 percent of Americans believe the media
>>> is biased. Did such bias affect coverage of the Covid-19 pandemic? I run
>>> a research team in the department of epidemiology at the University of
>>> California–San Francisco. In our report, the first to analyze a
>>> newspaper systematically, we found significant evidence of bias in the
>>> New York Times, considered by some to be the newspaper of record, on
>>> pandemic coverage—skewed toward overstating the threat posed by the virus.
>>>
>>> Our study examined all corrections issued by the New York Times to
>>> articles relating to the Covid-19 pandemic. Between 2020 and 2024, the
>>> newspaper issued 576 corrections for 486 articles. Naturally, in times
>>> of crisis, facing uncertain and evolving information, reporters will get
>>> facts wrong. Sometimes they may, for instance, over- or underreport the
>>> number of children who have died or misstate the effectiveness of
>>> interventions like lockdowns. If news organizations are unbiased, one
>>> would expect such errors to occur with relatively equal frequency.
>>>
>>> That’s not what we found. Instead, the paper’s errors tended to
>>> exaggerate the harm of the virus (or the effectiveness of
>>> interventions). Corrections were made for such errors nearly twice as
>>> frequently as for errors that downplayed harms. Fifty-five percent of
>>> errors overstated the harm of the virus, while only 24 percent
>>> understated (the rest were equivocal). In other words, when the New York
>>> Times got things wrong, it tended to do so in a way that falsely stoked
>>> fear and encouraged harmful social restrictions.
>>>
>>> In October 2021, a particularly notable correction read as
>>> follows—inviting questions as to how such a remarkable mistake could
>>> make it into print at all:
>>>
>>> An article on Thursday . . . misstated the number of Covid
>>> hospitalizations in U.S. children. It is more than 63,000 from August
>>> 2020 to October 2021, not 900,000 since the beginning of the pandemic.
>>>
>>> Glad they could straighten that out.
>>>
>>> Not all reporters were equally culpable; some required more corrections
>>> than others. One in particular, Apoorva Mandavilli, was responsible for
>>> 7 percent of all corrections. When the “science and global health
>>> reporter” erred, she tended to exaggerate the risk of the virus:
>>>
>>>
>>> This same reporter is known for inserting her feelings into her content.
>>> In 2021, she tweeted the following: “Someday we will stop talking about
>>> the lab leak theory and maybe even admit its racist roots. But alas,
>>> that day is not yet here.” To my knowledge, the New York Times has not
>>> reassigned any reporter on the Covid-19 beat for getting things
>>> wrong—even when those errors appear to be byproducts of the author’s
>>> underlying prejudice.
>>>
>>> Over the last few years, the newspaper has faced more scrutiny of its
>>> ideologically skewed coverage. Opinion editor James Bennet, dismissed
>>> for publishing an op-ed by Senator Tom Cotton in the summer of 2020,
>>> wrote a lengthy article in the Economist documenting how progressive
>>> ideology has captured the newsroom. Don McNeil was dismissed as chief
>>> science reporter for comments he had made years before. McNeil, it's
>>> worth noting, was open to the possibility of the lab-leak theory, having
>>> published essays that reignited mainstream interest in the subject—in
>>> contrast with his successor, Mandavilli.
>>>
>>> In any event, the newspaper’s distortions are skewed in the same
>>> direction as its political bias. When it came to Covid-19, Republicans
>>> tended to be more skeptical of sweeping governmental and public-health
>>> interventions like lockdowns, masking young children, and closing
>>> schools, and more concerned about their negative consequences. Florida
>>> governor Ron DeSantis reopened his state’s schools in the spring of
>>> 2020, against the advice of experts like Anthony Fauci, and opposed
>>> masking kids. Democrats, meantime, came to embrace stronger government
>>> policies, such as vaccine mandates. The Biden administration enforced
>>> the masking of toddlers in Head Start programs. The New York Times’s
>>> tilt on these matters appeared consistent with its traditional political
>>> sympathies.
>>>
>>> It should concern all of us that legacy media displayed such a strong
>>> bias during an unprecedented pandemic. Perhaps our research can prompt
>>> an internal audit at the Times to assess the paper’s role in
>>> intensifying fear and legitimizing harmful social policies. At a
>>> minimum, newspapers should implement more substantive checks and
>>> balances to ensure more balanced coverage—and avoid unduly promoting
>>> panic the next time a crisis strikes.
>>
>> In the interim, we are 100% prepared/protected in the "full armor of
>> GOD" (Ephesians 6:11) which we put on as soon as we use Apostle Paul's
>> secret (Philippians 4:12). Though masking is less protective, it helps
>> us avoid the appearance of doing the evil of spreading airborne
>> pathogens while there are people getting sick because of not being
>> 100% protected. It is written that we're to "abstain from **all**
>> appearance of doing evil" (1 Thessalonians 5:22 w/**emphasis**).
>>
>> Meanwhile, the only *perfect* (Matt 5:47-8 ) way to eradicate the
>> COVID-19 virus, thereby saving lives, in the US & elsewhere is by
>> rapidly (i.e. use the "Rapid COVID-19 Test" ) finding out at any given
>> moment, including even while on-line, who among us are unwittingly
>> contagious (i.e pre-symptomatic or asymptomatic) in order to
>> "convince it forward" (John 15:12) for them to call their doctor and
>> self-quarantine per their doctor in hopes of stopping this pandemic.
>> Thus, we're hoping for the best while preparing for the worse-case
>> scenario of the Alpha lineage mutations and others like the Omicron,
>> Gamma, Beta, Epsilon, Iota, Lambda, Mu & Delta lineage mutations
>> combining via slip-RNA-replication to form hybrids like "Deltamicron"
>> that may render current COVID vaccines/monoclonals/medicines/pills no
>> longer effective.
>>
>> Indeed, I am wonderfully hungry (
>> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.med.cardiology/c/6ZoE95d-VKc/m/14vVZoyOBgAJ
>> ) and hope you, Michael, also have a healthy appetite too.
>>
>> So how are you ?
>
> I am wonderfully hungry!

While wonderfully hungry in the Holy Spirit, Who causes (Deuteronomy
8:3) us to hunger, I note that you, Michael, are rapture ready (Luke
17:37 means no COVID just as eagles circling over their food have no
COVID) and pray (2 Chronicles 7:14) that our Everlasting (Isaiah 9:6)
Father in Heaven continues to give us "much more" (Luke 11:13) Holy
Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23) so that we'd have much more of His Help to
always say/write that we're "wonderfully hungry" in **all** ways
including especially caring to "convince it forward" (John 15:12) with
all glory (Psalm112:1) to GOD (aka HaShem, Elohim, Abba, DEO), in
the name (John 16:23) of LORD Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Amen.

Laus DEO !

On Sun, 15 Sep 2024 14:48:40 -0400, HeartDoc Andrew
<disciple@T3WiJ.com> wrote:

>Michael Ejercito wrote:
>
>> <FLUSH GOOK BABBLE>

Did you 'greek' him like you did that poor girl?

https://abcnews.go.com/US/hungry-doctor-diet-kill-georgia-teenager/story?id=16661077

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJLojgoZwsw

<Apoorva> 09/15/24 Loose/KK again vainjangling (1 Tim 1:6) ...

https://narkive.com/GHNKXeiE.10

Link to post explicating vainjangling by the eternally condemned:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.med.cardiology/O23NguTslhI/-xLGqnNjAAAJ

"Like a moth to flame, the eternally condemned tragically return to be
ever more cursed by GOD."

Behold in wide-eyed wonder and amazement at the continued fulfillment
of this prophecy as clearly demonstrated within the following USENET
threads:

(1) Link to thread titled "LORD Jesus Christ of Nazareth is our #1
Example of being wonderfully hungry;"

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.med.cardiology/c/_iVmOb7q3_Q/m/E8L7TNNtAgAJ

(2) Link to thread titled "Being wonderfully hungry;"

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sci.med.cardiology/uCPb3ldOv5M

(3) Link to thread titled "A very very very simple definition of sin;"

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.bible.prophecy/xunFWhan_AM

(4) Link to thread titled "The LORD says 'Blessed are you who hunger
now;'"

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.bible.prophecy/e4sW8dr44rM

(5) Link to thread titled "Being wonderfully hungry like LORD Jesus;"

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.bible.prophecy/xPY1Uzl-ZNk/QeKLDNCpCwAJ

.... for the continued benefit (Romans 8:28) of those of us who are
http://WonderfullyHungry.org like GOD ( http://bit.ly/Lk2442 ) with
all glory ( http://bit.ly/Psalm112_1 ) to the LORD.

Source:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.med.cardiology/O23NguTslhI/pIZcsOCJBwAJ

Laus DEO !

While wonderfully hungry ( http://bit.ly/Philippians4_12 ) in the Holy
Spirit, Who causes (Deuteronomy 8:3) me to hunger right now (Luke
6:21a), I pray (2 Chronicles 7:14) that GOD continues to curse
(Jeremiah 17:5) you, who are eternally condemned (Mark 3:29), more
than ever in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Amen.

Laus DEO ! ! !

Bottom line:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.med.cardiology/O23NguTslhI/h5lE-mr0DAAJ

<begin trichotomy>

(1) Born-again (John 3:3 & 5) humans - Folks who have GOD's Help (i.e.
Holy Spirit) to stop (John 5:14) sinning by being
http://WonderfullyHungry.org (Philippians 4:12) **but** are still
able to choose via their own "free will" to be instead
http://bit.ly/terribly_hungry (Genesis 25:32) trapped in the
entangling (Hebrews 12:1) deadly (i.e. killed immortals Adam&Eve) sin
of gluttony (Proverbs 23:2).

(2) Eternally condemned (Mark 3:29) humans - Folks who will never have
GOD's Help (i.e. Holy Spirit) to stop being
http://bit.ly/terribly_hungry (2 Kings 6:29) as evident by their
constant vainjangling (1 Timothy 1:6) about everything except how to
stop (John 5:14) sinning.

(3) Perishing humans - The remaining folks who may possibly (Matthew
19:26) become born-again (John 3:3 & 5) as new (2 Corinthians 5:17)
creatures in Christ.

<end trichotomy>

Suggested further reading:
http://T3WiJ.com

+++

someone eternally condemned & ever more cursed by GOD wrote:
> HeartDoc Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>
>> Subject: The LORD says "Blessed are you who hunger now ..."

Source:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.bible.prophecy/e4sW8dr44rM/NSkTJxvFBAAJ

>Shame on andrew, look at his red face.

LIE.

The color of my face in **not** visible here on USENET nor is the
color of my face red for those who can see me.

>He is trying to pull a fast one. His scripture bit is found among these:
>
>'14 Bible verses about Spiritual Hunger'

Such are the lies coming from the lying pens of the
http://bit.ly/terribly_hungry (Genesis 25:32) commentators.

That which is "spiritual" is independent of time so that there
would've been no reference to "now."

Therefore, the LORD is referring to physical hunger here instead of
the spiritual "hunger and thirst for righteousness" elsewhere in
Scripture.

Indeed, physical hunger can **not** coexist with physical thirst
because the latter results in the loss of saliva needed for physical
hunger.

It is when we hunger for food "now" (Luke 6:21a) that we are able to
eat food "now."

No such time constraints exist for "spiritual hunger."

Moreover, the perspective of Luke 6:21a through the eyes of a
physician (i.e. Dr. Luke) would be logically expected to be physical
instead of spiritual.

All glory ( http://bit.ly/Psalm112_1 ) to GOD for His compelling you
to unwittingly demonstrate your ever worsening cognitive condition
which is tragically a consequence of His cursing (Jeremiah 17:5) you
more than ever.

Laus DEO !

+++

someone eternally condemned & ever more cursed by GOD perseverated:
(in a vain attempt to refute posts about being wonderfully hungry)

>Psalms
>81:10 I am the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt:
>open thy mouth wide, and I will fill it.

Indeed, receiving a mouthful (Psalm 81:10) of manna from GOD will only
make His http://WDJW.great-site.net/Redeemed want even more, so that
we're even http://bit.ly/wonderfully_hungrier with all glory (
http://bit.ly/Psalm112_1 ) to GOD.

Laus DEO !

>Proverbs
>13:25 The righteous has enough to satisfy his appetite, But the stomach of
>the wicked is in need.

Indeed, the righteous know to be satisfied (Luke 6:21a) with an omer
(Exodus 16:16) of manna, while the wicked need (Proverbs 13:25) this
knowledge as evident by their eating until they are full (i.e.
satiated).

>Joel
>2:26 And ye shall eat in plenty, and be satisfied, and praise the name of
>the LORD your God, that hath dealt wondrously with you: and my
>people shall never be ashamed.

Indeed, an omer (32 ounces per Revelation 6:6) of manna is plenty
(Joel 2:26) with all glory ( http://bit.ly/Psalm112_1 ) to GOD and to
the shame of you, who are eternally (Mark 3:29) condemned.

Laus DEO ! !

>Psalms
>107 For he satisfies the thirsty and fills the hungry with good things.

Indeed, being filled (Psalm 107:9) with an omer (Exodus 16:16) of
manna is a Wonderful (Isaiah 9:6) thing while being satiated (i.e.
full) is evil.

>Acts
>14:17 "Yet he did not leave himself without witness, for he did good by
>giving you rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, satisfying
>your hearts with food and gladness."

In the interim, you, who are eternally (Mark 3:29) condemned, will
never be satisfied (Acts 14:17) because you are ever more cursed
(Jeremiah 17:5) by GOD.

Source:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.med.cardiology/uCPb3ldOv5M/KgM8NFKuAQAJ

+++

> someone eternally condemned & ever more cursed by GOD perseverated:
>> HeartDoc Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>>
>> Subject: a very very very simple definition of sin ...

Source:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.med.cardiology/mXmFD9kIocc/y8GNXircBQAJ

>> Does andrew's "definition" agree with scripture? Let's see in 1 John:

Actually, sin is **not** defined in 1 John 1:8-10

>> John wrote this to christians. The greek grammer (sic) speaks of an ongoing
>> status. He includes himself in that status.

John was a Jew instead of a Greek so there is really no reason to
think that Greek grammar is relevant here.

>> 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is
>> not in us.
>>
>> 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins,
>> and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
>>
>> 1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is
>> not in us.

John also wrote earlier at John 5:14 that LORD Jesus commands:

"Now stop sinning or something worse may happen to you." (John 5:14)

And, indeed, your being eternally condemned (Mark 3:29) & ever more
cursed (Jeremiah 17:5) by GOD, as evident by your ever worsening
cognitive deficits, is really worse.

Now again, here's how to really stop sinning as LORD Jesus commands
(John 5:14):

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.bible.prophecy/2-Qpn-o81J4/ldGubKEZAgAJ

While wonderfully hungry ( http://bit.ly/Philippians4_12 ) in the Holy
Spirit, Who causes (Deuteronomy 8:3) me to hunger right now (Luke
6:21a), I again pray (2 Chronicles 7:14) that GOD continues to curse
(Jeremiah 17:5) you, who are eternally condemned (Mark 3:29), more
than ever in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Amen.

Laus DEO ! ! !

Again, this is done in hopes of convincing all reading this to stop
being http://bit.ly/terribly_hungry (2 Kings 6:29) where all are in
danger of becoming eternally condemned (Mark 3:29) just as had
happened to Ananias and Sapphira and more contemporaneously to Bob
Pastorio.

Again, the LORD did strike dead http://bit.ly/Bob_Pastorio on Fool's
day just 9+ years ago:

http://bobs-amanuensis.livejournal.com/8728.html

Again, this is done ...

http://bit.ly/HeartDocAndrew touts hunger (Luke 6:21a) with all glory
( http://bit.ly/Psalm112_1 ) to GOD, Who causes us to hunger
(Deuteronomy 8:3) when He blesses us right now (Luke 6:21a) thereby
removing the http://WDJW.great-site.net/VAT from around the heart