Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> Hi Mozz,
>
> It is my hope you have regained your composure. I do enjoy
> our discussions and would hate to see you become another
> Bob Pastorio. He remains in my prayers, that God heals
> him, in Christ's name.
>
> Mozz wrote:
>>It is possible to point to gold, it is not possible to
>>point to God.
>>
> It is not possible to point out a tree to a blind man.
The absence of sight doesn't mean that the blind person
can't be aware of the tree. It's certainly possible for a
blind person to use the remaining senses. What weasel-word
foolishness.
>>>Nor can I point to Pluto to show you it exists.
>>
>>Yes you can.
>
> When you visit me, I will point up at where I believe
> Pluto is located but you will not see it.
>
>>Is it your contention that Pluto does not exist?
>
> No.
>
>>I can show you a photograph if you wish?
It looks like Chung is trying to say that in some
circumstances, the unaided senses can't perceive some things
that demonstrably exist. So additional technology is
necessary to establish proof. Poor guy just needed help to
state the obvious. ANd, of course, to herd him towards the
truth. <LOL>
> I can show you a Bible if you wish me to.
>
>>>You are the one that have not found God.
>>
>>Can you supply a photograph of God?
>>
> No.
>
> But, I can show you His Word.
Poor Chung has lost all sense of proportion. He believes
something and that makes it the truth. Not just the
truth *as he sees it* but the whole truth and nothing
but the truth.
>>>So you believe it is possible that your Dalai Lama may
>>>actually be ****** reincarnated?
>>
>>No. ****** was still alive when His Holiness was born.
>>
> Ok.
>
> So you believe it is possible that your Dalai Lama may
> actually be Caligula reincarnated?
It's equally possible that the Dalai Lama is St.
Francis reincarnated. Or DaVinci. Or Hammurabi. Or
Jimmu Tenno. Or...
>>>>No, the question is pertinent and meaningful. I am
>>>>attempting to draw parallels so you can start to
>>>>understand the power of mythology and religion in the
>>>>collective unconscious.
>>>>
>>>
>>>You still seem to be digressing.
>>
>>Perhaps the subject is too challenging for you?
>>
> No.
>
>>>>Can you demonstrate that you have such a gift, or must I
>>>>simply take your word for it?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Yes I can and have.
>>
>>I am still waiting for a convincing demonstration.
>>
> It is your choice to remain unconvinced. You have God's
> gift of free will.
And the gift of spotting the illogical and the spurious and
the fraudulent and the self-serving and the egotistical and
the deluded...
>>>I have read Bob's posts and was sad at sensing how
>>>desperate and despairing he felt. He remains in my
>>>prayers to God that he someday accept Christ as His Lord
>>>and Savior.
>>
>>Despite your views of Bob's 'feelings' he is clearly a
>>very intelligent man.
>
> He is eloquently unwise.
Translation from Chunglish to English: Bob kicks my ass
endlessly and I'm simply not up to the task of defending my
relentlessly fraudulent posturing.
>>His points are generally well made and demonstrate a
>>rigorous respect for accuracy and intellect.
>
> He has lost all credibility:
>
>
http://www.heartmdphd.com/libel.asp
<LOL> That old tired fraudulence again. Chung thinks that
because he says it, it's true. Poor Chung.
>>Instead of trading insults I suggest you try to debate
>>with him.
>
> We have until I grew weary of his ad hominems. I only have
> two cheeks
<LOL> It's perfectly fine for Chung to cast aspersions, and
demean others, and assert patently fake stuff, and evade,
and avoid dealing with his own phoniness, but when the
science, facts and logic show up, that's when he flies away.
As though Chung turns his other cheek. His sociopathic pasive-
aggressive manipulations (so obvious below with his
"answers" to the points Mozz raises about the bible), his
demonstrated lies, his insistence on that gossamer "truth
discernment" foolishness and the rest of his deliberately
destructive behaviors give lie to his posturing.
>>>>One does not choose between wisdom and compassion? They
>>>>are inter-related in the life lived as a practitioner.
>>>>This much is clear to understand Andrew, surely?
>>
>>>No.
>>>
>>>There are those who are compassionate and yet unwise...
>>>
>>>... and those who are wise and yet not compassionate.
>>
>>The beauty of Dharma practice is that both compassion and
>>wisdom are cultivated together.
>
> Then why two wings and not one path ?
Then why the trinity? Then why faith, hope and charity? Then
why Spic and Span? What a silly question Chung poses.
>>>God does not change.
>>
>>Malachi 3:6 "For I am the Lord; I change not." Numbers
>>23:19 "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the
>>son of man, that he should repent." Ezekiel 24:14 "I the
>>Lord have spoken it: it shall come to pass, and I will do
>>it; I will not go back, neither will I spare, neither will
>>I repent." James 1:17 " . . . the Father of lights, with
>>whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning."
>>
>>Versus -
>>
>>Exodus 32:14 "And the Lord repented of the evil which he
>>thought to do unto his people." Genesis 6:6,7 "And it
>>repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth . . .
>>And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created
>>from the face of the earth . . . for it repenteth me that
>>I have made him." Jonah 3:10 ". . . and God repented of
>>the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and
>>he did it not."
>>
> I see no change... only changing perceptions.
Chung sees no change between "neither will I repent" and
"and the Lord repented."
>>>>If you truly can discern the truth, why are you making
>>>>so many mistakes in 'the content' of your opinions
>>>>about me?
>>>>
>>>Observations are not mistakes, Mozz.
>>
>>If you truly can discern the truth, why are you making
>>so many mistakes on 'the content of your observations'
>>about me?
>>
> Having the gift of truth discernment is not the same as
> having the gift of infallibility.
But insisting on the reality of this obviously defective
"gift of truth discernment" that only works in a small
percentage of the time is psychopathic. Besides that,
getting back to reality, it's a poor instrument that works
inconsistently and inaccurately.
> You choose your definitions in a manner that suits your
> argument.
<LOLOLOLOL> I just love it when Chung shows his ass like
this. Poor sap.
>>I have researched a little and found some interesting
>>questions about the Bible which I would like you to
>>clear up -
>>
> Are these questions from your teacher?
What matter. They're questions.
>>1 - Turning to the New Testament, there are contradictions
>>between the genealogy of Jesus as set forth in the first
>>chapter of Matthew and the genealogy given in the third
>>chapter of Luke.
>
> There are. And I believe this contradiction was
> permitted by God.
>
>>Both genealogies list Jesus' father as being Joseph (which
>>is curious, given that Mary was supposedly impregnated by
>>the Holy Ghost), but Matthew states that the name of
>>Joseph's father was Jacob, while Luke says that his name
>>was Heli. Also, Matthew tells us that there were twenty-
>>six generations between Jesus and King David, but Luke
>>reports that the number of such generations was forty-one.
>>In addition, Matthew alleges that Jesus' line of descent
>>was through David's son Solomon, but Luke asserts that it
>>was through David's son Nathan???
>>
> If Joseph were the biological father of Jesus, his
> geneology would matter to God and He would have willed
> that the geneologies would be accurate. Instead, Joseph is
> Jesus' father in name only for the purposes of the "birth
> certificate." I believe the "inaccuracy" of Joseph's
> geneology underscores this point.
So let's see if we can follow the tortured logic from Chung.
It begins with his frequent assertion about the
infallibility of the bible. That the bible is "the word of
God" and that, by definition, means that it's perfect, true
and absolute.
But having been shown inconsistency between the writings
of the human authors, now Chung says that truth and fact
don't matter to God. That hs can say anything and isn't
bound by accuracy.
>>2 - In the story of the birth of Jesus, Matthew 2:13-15
>>says that Joseph and Mary fled to Egypt with the baby
>>Jesus immediately after the wise men from the east had
>>brought their gifts. However, Luke
>> 2:22-40 indicates that, after the birth of Jesus, Joseph
>> and Mary remained in Bethlehem for the time of Mary's
>> purification (which was forty days, under the Mosaic
>> law), then brought Jesus to Jerusalem "to present him
>> to the Lord," and then returned to their home in
>> Nazareth. Luke makes no mention of a journey into Egypt
>> or a visit by wise men from the east.
>
> Each writer clearly had different perspectives and sources
> of information. Again, it is my belief that the
> differences are according to God's will.
But, alas, Chung won't share his "truth discernment" and
explain what that purpose could possibly be.
Follow the logic: God has deliberately introduced falsity
into the bible for some divine purpose.
>>3 - As to the death of the disciple Judas, Matthew 27:5
>>states that Judas took the money that he had obtained by
>>betraying Jesus, threw it down in the temple, and then
>>"went and hanged himself." However, Acts
>> 1:18 reports that Judas used the money to purchase a
>> field and "falling headlong, he burst asunder in the
>> midst, and all his bowels gushed out."
>>
> Each writer clearly had different perspectives and sources
> of information. Again, it is my belief that the
> differences are according to God's will.
Chung's newest non sequitur macro. He can't even begin to
answer the question with anything approaching rationality so
he stonewalls. Why, exactly, is this different from the guys
who take the fifth amendment in court so they don't convict
themselves of some crime?
Chung's insistence on the literalness of the bible makes it
impossible for him to consider that much of it is folklore,
tales from other civilizations folded into it, parables and
stories that teach truths but are themselves not factual
retelling of actual events. His incapacity to consider
evidence that says there are fanciful stories for some other
purpose than merely to convey the exact thoughts of
context CHung offers? How to explain Revelations?
>>4 - In describing Jesus being led to his execution, John
>>19:17 states that Jesus carried his own cross. In
>>contrast, Mark 15:21-23 says that a man called Simon
>>carried Jesus' cross to the crucifixion site.
>>
> Each writer clearly had different perspectives and sources
> of information. Again, it is my belief that the
> differences are according to God's will.
So truth is mutable according to each writer.
>>5 - Regarding the crucifixion itself, Matthew 27:44 tells
>>us that Jesus was taunted by both of the criminals who
>>were being crucified with him. However, Luke 23:39-43
>>states that only one of the criminals taunted Jesus, that
>>the other criminal rebuked the one who was doing the
>>taunting, and that Jesus told the criminal who was
>>defending him: "Today shalt thou be with me in paradise."
>>
> Each writer clearly had different perspectives and sources
> of information. Again, it is my belief that the
> differences are according to God's will.
Or it could be that since none of the writers of the gospels
actually saw the crucifixion, that the stories they recorded
second hand weren't true. Or could it be that truth and fact
can be different things?
>>6 - As to the last words of Jesus while on the cross,
>>Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34 assert that Jesus cried with
>>a loud voice: "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"
>>Luke 23:46 says that Jesus' final words were: "Father,
>>into thy hands I commend my spirit." John 19:30 tells us
>>that the last statement of the dying Jesus was: "It is
>>finished."
>>
> Each writer clearly had different perspectives and sources
> of information. Again, it is my belief that the
> differences are according to God's will.
Or could it be that the human authors had differing agendas?
>>7 - There are even contradictions in the accounts of the
>>resurrection -- the alleged event which is the very basis
>>of the Christian religion. Mark 16:2 says that on the day
>>of the resurrection certain women arrived at the tomb at
>>the rising of the sun, but John 20:1 states that they
>>arrived when it was yet dark. Luke 24:2 tells us that the
>>tomb was open when the women arrived, but Matthew 28:1-2
>>indicates that it was closed. Mark 16:5 states that the
>>women saw a young man at the tomb, Luke 24:4 says that
>>they saw two men, Matthew 28:2 alleges that they saw an
>>angel, and John 20:11-12 insists that they saw two angels.
>>
> Each writer clearly had different perspectives and sources
> of information. Again, it is my belief that the
> differences are according to God's will.
Or could it be that in the intervening centuries and the
various rewriting of the gospels by the early church, the
words were fitted into a dogmatic matrix designed to further
the aims of the church fathers?
>>8 - Also in the resurrection accounts, there are
>>contradictions as to who the women were that came to the
>>tomb, whether the men or angels that the women saw were
>>inside or outside the tomb, whether the men or angels were
>>standing or sitting, and whether Mary Magdalene recognized
>>the risen Jesus when he first appeared to her.
>>
> Each writer clearly had different perspectives and sources
> of information. Again, it is my belief that the
> differences are according to God's will.
But God's will doesn't include accuracy and factual
retelling?
>>9 - As a final example of a contradiction contained in the
>>New Testament, the conflicting accounts of the conversion
>>of Paul can be cited. Acts 9:7 says that when Jesus called
>>Paul to preach the gospel, the men who were with Paul
>>heard a voice but saw no man. However, Acts
>>22:9 asserts that when Paul received his calling, the men
>> who were with him saw a light but did not hear the
>> voice that spoke to Paul.
>>
> Each writer clearly had different perspectives and sources
> of information. Again, it is my belief that the
> differences are according to God's will.
An uncharitable reading from that wacko Chung perspective of
the bible being the word of God might conclude that God is
even more psychopathic than Chung.
Or it might be that the bible is the collected works of
human authors working under inspiration written without
editing from God. That the bible is the work of sincere
philosophers and thinkers trying to assemble the lore and
ethical values of a culture for future generations.
>>The foregoing examples are just a few of the hundreds of
>>contradictions contained in the Bible. The presence of
>>such contradictions plainly shows that the Bible contains
>>many erroneous statements and is therefore far from
>>infallible.
>>
> The erroneous reporting of events by truthful witnesses is
> in itself a truth.
So errors of fact can still be truth? I think it especially
poignant that Chung says this above: "You choose your
definitions in a manner that suits your argument."
>>Do you agree the Bible is far from infallible Andrew?
>
> No.
>
>>If not, can you explain why?
>
> Yes. I discern truth in the "erroneous" written accounts
> by the various witnesses of the Bible.
Chung says, "You choose your definitions in a manner that
suits your argument."
Chung finds his version of "truth" in factual disagreements.
According to Chung, the indisputable fact that there are
different accounts of the *same* events is Ok. The mutually
exclusive tales are somehow to be considered so "truth" can
be extracted. But apparently only by the people who have
this (LOL) "gift of truth discernment."
>>And can you comment on each of the nine points above to
>>shed light on what seems to be 'errors' in God's book?
>>
> I can and have.
Chung says above, "The erroneous reporting of events by
truthful witnesses is in itself a truth."
This is a new "twofold path" being evangelized by the word-
weasel Chung. The two paths are "Truth" versus "Facts." Now
we can see that they don't need to travel the same
direction. We see that according to Chung, witnesses need
not tell the truth if they prefer something else. So when
Chung says he's being "truthful," it doesn't mean, as it
does to everyone else, that he is necessarily offering facts
and demonstrably accurate information.
Poor frightened, terrified Chung. Why else cling so
desperately, so frantically, so irretrievably to an
obviously flawed view of the universe? Only someone panicked
beyond rationality could possibly subvert reason and logic
to this extent. Only someone with the gravest doubts and
deepest fears would have to create a whole edifice that
flies in the face of the mental powers humans have. Only
someone terminally apprehensive could force themselves into
a box like this. Chung doubts God. If he truly believed that
God is omnibeneficient, he would know that God understand
that we're all merely human, flawed and imperfect. Chung's
slavering sycophancy denies his own mantra that we have free
will. For some demented reason, Chung seems to feel that God
needs Chung to defend him. Omnipotent, omniscient God needs
Chung to support him. Poor egotistical, deluded Chung. He
doesn't understand the order of magnitude he's playing with.
He doesn't understand how little he matters in the grand
scheme of things.
Bob