Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> Matti Narkia <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
>>Tue, 25 Nov 2003 11:04:18 -0500 in article
>><[email protected]> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>Matti Narkia wrote:
>>>
>>>><snip>
>>>>
>>>>>>I'm sorry, but I couldn't find there any statement by Mr. Pastorio,where
>>>>>>he would claim that there is no God.
>>>>>>
>>>>>"But first you have to prove that it's the word of god without quoting
>>>>>the book itself. Try another source. There isn't one."
Poor crippled Chung can't seem to see that those few sentences were
about a book that was assembled by scholars. Poor ignorant Chung
doesn't know how the bible came to be; what was included and what was
excluded. Poor intellectually-encysted Chung doesn't know that there
are several "bibles" in christianity. Poor "it's a done deal" Chung
thinks that there's only one way to read the bible and that alternate
translations that use different words somehow all mean the exact same
things. KJ, NIV, Douay, Rheimish, and others. Poor one-language Chung
says he speaks Chinese (in some web sites, not all) but seems not to
know that words can't be translated exactly from one language to another.
Poor clinging-by-his-nails- Chung doesn't understand the warmth,
compassion and humor in christianity. Nor does he see the root of it
all; honesty, with self, others and god. Poor literalist Chung seems
not to understand that rules for life and after life are debatable
amongst people of good will and sincere effort. That the various
bibles are guidelines and roadmaps for a journey. The book itself is
no more more a sacred object than a map is the same as the country.
Poor idolatrous Chung worships a book of paper and ink rather than god.
>>>>Here Mr. Pastorio just says that there is no alternative source proving
>>>>that the bible is the word of God. He is _not_ saying that there is no
>>>>God.
>>>Let Mr. Pastorio publically state there is a God and perhaps you'll convince somebody.
>>
>>Why should he do that?
>
> To help you be convincing.
Well, Poor Chung. Mr. Pastorio did exactly that. I suspect it made not
a whit of difference for boosting Matti's credibility, as none was
needed. He's already demonstrated himself to be a very clear and
honest poster. Matti has no need for further demonstration. It's Chung
who's the transparent faker.
>>The issue is that you claimed that Mr. Pastorio had
>>written here that there is no God.
>
> I wrote that Mr. Pastorio would have you believe there is no God.
Chung wrote that repeatedly *after* I said I thought there was a god.
>>When questioned, you have failed to
>>prove your claim.
>
> I directed you directly the source of Mr. Pastorio's writings where
> the above can be deduced.
Yes. That's what Matti said. Chung has failed to prove his claim. But
that's nothing new with Chung. Why is it necessary to "deduce"
anything when I've said bluntly that I believe there's a god. More
Chung tactics.
So how come Chung doesn't quote where I say I believe there is a god?
Could he be deliberately trying to continue his lying, as I predicted
he would? As he always does?
>>There is no such statement by Mr. Pastorio.
>
> See above.
Nothing to see. I wrote that I believe there is a god. And repeated it.
>>Either you
>>have misunderstood his writing or you have not been truthful.
>
> I understand his writings *and* I remain truthful.
Clearly, both statements are simply wrong. I stated unequivocally that
I believe there is a god. Period. No qualifications. No conditions.
For Chung to continue to assert the contrary as something one may
"deduce" is to deliberately be dishonest. So. Either he *doesn't
understand my writing. Or he's as untruthful as usual.
>>Whether Mr. Pastorio actually believes in God (recently he has said that
>>he does)or not is utterly irrelevant in this issue which concerned only
>>what he allegedly had written according to you.
>
> Allegedly? That's the wonderful thing about archived Usenet. There
> is no more alleged. Do you want the link to where folks get the
> distinct impression that Mr. Pastorio would have people believe there
> is no God?
Honest English simply escapes Chung. Matti was talking about what
*Chung* alleges I wrote. Or rather what Chung wants to *create* what I
meant since what I wrote is clear enough. Chung's efforts to make what
I said into something else is both typical and failed. As usual.
That link is yet another effort at Chung's normal mendacity. Notice
how he couches his words in his typical slimy innuendo - "the link to
where folks get the distinct impression..." Folks? Others have
gotten that impression? Looks like "humble" Chung thinks he's
multitudes. Folks... <LOL>
Chung is a liar. Period. The link demonstrates nothing he wants it to.
Either he actually thinks he can see meanings no one else can or he's
lying. Either way, he's created meaning rather than shown it.
>>>His statement is absolutely correct.
>>>
>>>This goes to your bias.
>>
>>Stating the fact is not a sign of bias.
>
> Hint: Editorializing with words like absolutely, perfectly,
> definitely tends to make statements less factual and more opinion.
> English is not your first language is it?
Using words like "libel" when Chung doesn't know what it means is a
better example. Likewise his self-serving definition of "troll" as
somebody anonymous. Likewise all his "testimonials" that aren't
endorsements. English is not his first language is it?
I especially like it when he says that his faith is knowledge.
Speaking of editorializing with words.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone,
"it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
"Through the Looking Glass." Lewis Carrol.
Humpty Dumpty Chung. Has a nice ring...
>>>>There is no _proof_ that the bible is
>>>>the word of God.
>>>
>>>You'll have it when you die.
I would assume that means that Chung can't offer any proof. Typical
evasion. Just like how much should different-sized people eat? Chung's
answer: everybody should eat the same.
>>>>It's the matter of _belief_.
>>>
>>>It's called knowledge through faith.
>>
>>There is no such thing, there is only your faith.
>
> This is not about me.
Oh, it's all about Chung. It's about his falsity. It's about his
apparently deteriorating mental state. It's about his behavior here.
It's about his tactics and techniques. It's all about Chung. It's all
about how he claims to be one thing and demonstrates the opposite. A
man of science, he says and then recites the rote madness of his
fanatical fundamentalist "truth." "Humbly" he signs off and then
demonstrates arrogance and a pathological lack of empathy and compassion.
Chung is the poster-boy for cognitive dissonance and the sad debility
of the utter lack of integrity and intellectual rigor that his
education should engender. Retaining many bits of data isn't the same
as being educated.
And as a "testimonial" to Chung, herewith a definitional quotation and
a place to read more about him and his tactics:
"Humpty Dumpty language, noun. An idiosyncratic or eccentric use of
language in which the meaning of particular words is determined by the
speaker." <http://www.wordspy.com/words/HumptyDumptylanguage.asp>
Pastorio
> Humbly,
>
> Andrew
>
> --
> Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Board-Certified Cardiologist
> http://www.heartmdphd.com
LOL