Was Jesus Compassionate



> > >>If there has indeed been no previous conversation I would appreciate an explanation as to how
> > >>you came about that information before I consider answering such a personal and sensitive
> > >>subject.
> > >
> > > Google.
> >
> > Another example of the Chung/Mu vileness of trying to find sensitive places and vulnerabilities
> > to use against people. To cause pain and humiliate people. To demonstrate their viciousness.
> >
> > Pity that Chung is unable to use his "truth discernment" ray gun on himself. Might be just as
> > revolted as most everybody else.
> >
> > Bob

Chung just forgot to send this to Mu to post guess his wife is busy with the kids?? or his personal
trainer is tired of being his sock puppet?? oh, so many reasons why he forgot
 
Tiger Lily wrote:

>>>>>If there has indeed been no previous conversation I would appreciate an explanation as to how
>>>>>you came about that information before I consider answering such a personal and sensitive
>>>>>subject.
>>>>
>>>>Google.
>>>
>>>Another example of the Chung/Mu vileness of trying to find sensitive places and vulnerabilities
>>>to use against people. To cause pain and humiliate people. To demonstrate their viciousness.
>>>
>>>Pity that Chung is unable to use his "truth discernment" ray gun on himself. Might be just as
>>>revolted as most everybody else.
>>>
>>>Bob
>
> Chung just forgot to send this to Mu to post guess his wife is busy with the kids?? or his
> personal trainer is tired of being his sock puppet?? oh, so many reasons why he forgot

Oh, I bet that Mu is off on one of his top-secret forays again. Probably with Mrs. Mu and the kids
in their RV off to see Dollywood.

My name? Mu. James Mu.

<LOL>

Bob
 
Mozz wrote:
>
> >Hi Mozz whom I love,
>
> Unconditionally?

Yes.

> >> I believe that you are deluded in your theism. Because I can not 'prove' the non existence of
> >> God does not invalidate my belief.
> >
> >It does mean that you have no basis for your diagnosis.
>
> My basis lies in the indisputable truth of emptiness.

Is it your claim that all who believe in God are deluded?

> >> There is no God.
> >
> >That would be your faithless belief.
>
> It is my observation. I have sought God out, and discovered that He does not exist.

A man pans for gold but does not find any. Does that mean gold does not exist?

> Witness buddhist truth discernment in action :)

I don't see it.

> >> >Sins are independent of belief in God.
> >>
> >> Do you mean by that that you accept there are references to 'sins' without any need to
> >> reference God? ie: a secular useage?
> >
> >I know there are such references.
>
> So, as you have recognised there is a secular reference to 'sin' also
> (ie: non theist)

Yes.

> >> Can you explain why I would not be a truth seeker by waiting to be shown evidence in
> >> experience?
> >
> >Seeking is by definition an active process.
>
> I sought out God, and instead found Emptiness.

Perhaps you did not look hard enough.

> >> >> >Do you believe in the existence of evil, Mozz?
> >> >>
> >> >> I believe that one can label very bad things 'evil' , so in that context I do.
> >> >
> >> >Do you believe that a sentient being can be evil, Mozz?
> >>
> >> No. His or her behaviour may be labelled very wicked or 'evil', but I do not believe a person
> >> can be 'evil' per se.
> >>
> >
> >Was ****** evil, Mozz?
>
> No. His behaviour may be justifiably labelled very wicked or 'evil', but I do not believe a person
> can be 'evil' per se.
> >
> >Was Caligula evil?
>
> See Above.

Has either ****** or Caligula been reincarnated?

> >Observations are proof of an observer's insight.
>
> No, merely the observers 'interpretation' of events.
>
> >Observations are proof of an observer's insight.
>
> No, merely the observers 'interpretation' of events.
>
> >> Move to a better vantage point if you have the courage.
> >
> >Have I rescinded my offer for you to take our interactions to a higher level (personal email,
> >visit to Atlanta, et cetera) ?
>
> By moving to a better vantage point I am suggesting you 'let go' of what appears to be your total
> inability to think around your Christian extremist blind-spot and accept the possibility of other
> valid interpretations. This would take courage for someone so defended as yourself.

The same could be said of you.

> >> How does my 'handle' betray me?
> >
> >Joda is a fictional character in George Lucas' fantasy.
>
> Can you prove that George Lucas was not the unconscious 'vessel' to transmit to the world a new
> religion? Can you prove that The Force is not real? Some people do believe in The Force. Like your
> Bible stories there are authoratitive mythological texts - 'the Star Wars movies'.

Are you not digressing?

> For you there is Satan and his demonic hordes of darkness. For them they have The Emperor and
> Vader and the Dark Lords of the Sith.... You have your saints and spiritual crusaders, they have
> their Jedi Knights...
>
> Can you see the parallels? What is really the difference between them and you?

The gift of truth discernment.

> >Is it your claim that the handle chose you?
>
> My friend who built the system here chose it without my input.
>
> >Sounds like you need many people to help you reach enlightenment.
>
> How on earth did you get from the setting up of a computer system to enlightenment? (LOL)

What are you looking at right now?

> >> And yet you did not witness any of the Biblical stories.
> >
> >I have witnessed both the discovery of and the genetic sequence of the mtDNA of Eve.
> >
> >Is Eve a character of one of the stories of the Holy Bible ?
>
> Try reading Bob's posts on the latest scientific pronouncements on that research. Then you may lay
> that ghost to rest and move on in clarity.

Ghosts don't have mtDNA sequences. Bob's posts about mtDNA research is analogous to my posting about
the latest in the culinary arts.

> >> No. Siddhartha is dead, Siddhartha's buddha nature (subtle mind) would be carried forward for
> >> rebirth, however, in the new body there would be nothing of Siddhartha at all.
> >
> >Not even dharma?
>
> No, the dharma are the teachings.

Was it not your assertion earlier that an enlightened person will pick dharma back up after being
reincarnated?

> >Not surprising since you have stated that you are unable to "let go."
>
> May I respectfully point out that a fundamental aspect of buddhist practice is 'letting go of
> attachment'.

You seem quite attached to your disbelief.

> >> Your effort to practice the dharma diligently and fully would be entirely down to you as an
> >> individual. However, once on the path, one generates compassion for all sentient beings, and
> >> this also works hand in hand with the Wisdom aspect of the Path. The two wings of the Path are
> >> Wisdom and Compassion.
> >
> >It seems your dharma path is divided. Which wing will you choose?
>
> As I pointed out (you must have missed it) the two work hand in hand, symbiotically.

But you are only one person. What of the wing not taken?

> >Truth is the thing that we are discussing at this moment.
>
> It is only a 'thing' in a purely abstract sense in the act of mentation. The 'thought' - truth is
> not the same as actual 'truth'.

For a person with the gift of truth discernment, there is only truth.

> >Then why are we discussing this thing we call truth?
>
> You tell me. You seem to be obsessed with the delusion that you 'know'
> it.

Glad you agree that truth is something that can be discussed.

> >For those with the gift of truth discernment, truth is a very real and visible thing.
>
> And yet you cannot point to it can you?

I have but you refused to look.

> >Your perceptions are colored by your apparent inability to discern the truth.
>
> Only apparent to you and those who might share your delusions.

We number in the millions. Shouldn't you follow buddha's wisdom of adapting?

> >> Another error. You seem to enjoy the fantasy that you might have such power, I am sorry to
> >> disappoint you again.
> >>
> >
> >Being able to discern the truth is not a power, Mozz.
>
> If you truly can discern the truth, why are you making so many mistakes in your opinions about me?

Opinions aren't mistakes, Mozz.

> >> What was your motivation for looking this up on Google?
>
> >I am a truth seeker, Mozz.
>
> Please explain so everyone who reads this may see, how that would relate to you dredging up old
> posts totally unrelated to you or the purview of this discussion, and as if that wasn't enough,
> then choosing to arbitrarily throw in a question relating to my request for legal advice on a
> highly charged and personal matter that my family sought over a serious complication surrounding
> the arrangements directly after my father's tragic death last year?

This serves to illustrate truth seeking. The question was not arbitrary. How you answered the
question would have revealed whether you truly have "let go of all attachments." It is quite telling
that instead of answering the question, you now seem to be bristling with indignation.

> This seems to herald a highly unskillful and sinister turn in proceedings Andrew and leaves a very
> nasty taste in the mouth.

What you taste is truth. Truth is bitter for the untruthful.

> I cannot deny that I am disappointed by this as the loss of my father (who I loved deeply) is
> still very much in my thoughts.
>
> Mozz

Sorry to hear that you are still suffering.

Truly, you remain in my prayers to God, Mozz, in Christ's name.

Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/

**
Who is the humblest person in the universe?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?W1F522557

What is all this about?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?A26B16397

Is this spam?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?N69721867
 
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:

>>Mozz wrote:

>>>Chung wrote:

>>>Observations are proof of an observer's insight.
>>
>>No, merely the observers 'interpretation' of events.
>>
>>>Observations are proof of an observer's insight.
>>
>>No, merely the observers 'interpretation' of events.

The final problem with Chung's insistence about his "observations" is that they're value judgments
and not simply an emotionless description devoid of bias. Chung's loaded "observations" show little
insight. They're generally ammunition in what he likes to call "discussions" but are more
realistically described as duels, irrespective of whether the other person understands that up
front. His "observations" take several forms including statements that include the expression "I
sense that..." where saying truthfully that is simply impossible - as when he says he can "sense"
someone's physical condition or that he can "sense" someone's mental state - diagnoses without
examination.

Chung has three modes:

1) Direct replies to medical questions wherein he used to give detailed medical advice but where he
now seems to offer less information. Presumably he finally spoke with an attorney about his
behavior rather than spout his TV-lawyerisms.

2) Platitudes and wildly over-the-top praise offered to those blind souls who agree with his
religious mouthings. If they agree with his demented vision, he tells them they have the
"gift of truth discernment" like him, and are wonderful people who will reap their rightful
place with God.

3) Dueling and denigrating mode wherein he will say virtually anything to try to embarrass,
humiliate, demean, overwhelm or otherwise triumph over anyone who doesn't agree with everything
he says. He uses his socks and alter egos as further tools to post vicious, scurrilous, generally
untrue innuendoes intended to put the other person on the defensive. Chung will usually deny that
this is what's happening.

>>Can you prove that George Lucas was not the unconscious 'vessel' to transmit to the world a new
>>religion? Can you prove that The Force is not real? Some people do believe in The Force. Like your
>>Bible stories there are authoratitive mythological texts - 'the Star Wars movies'.
>
> Are you not digressing?

Well, in a word, no. It's a rather potent question raising the subject of the true nature of myth
and legend. It raises the question of the sources of human creation myths and moral tales. It's
actually a rather poignant evocation of the difference between fact and truth.

>>For you there is Satan and his demonic hordes of darkness. For them they have The Emperor and
>>Vader and the Dark Lords of the Sith.... You have your saints and spiritual crusaders, they have
>>their Jedi Knights...
>>
>>Can you see the parallels? What is really the difference between them and you?
>
> The gift of truth discernment.

And this is a classic Chung evasion. Utterly unresponsive in that Chung hasn't demonstrated any such
ability. His "observations" are usually far from the reality. His "I sense" comments are usually
erroneous. His evasions and dishonesty are provable and explain his "truth discernment" failures. He
believes this fallacy about himself, all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.

>>>Is it your claim that the handle chose you?
>>
>>My friend who built the system here chose it without my input.
>>
>>>Sounds like you need many people to help you reach enlightenment.
>>
>>How on earth did you get from the setting up of a computer system to enlightenment? (LOL)
>
> What are you looking at right now?

<LOL> Another wave of Chung's "truth discernment?" Perfect non sequitur. Fool.

>>>>And yet you did not witness any of the Biblical stories.
>>>
>>>I have witnessed both the discovery of and the genetic sequence of the mtDNA of Eve.
>>>
>>>Is Eve a character of one of the stories of the Holy Bible ?
>>
>>Try reading Bob's posts on the latest scientific pronouncements on that research. Then you may lay
>>that ghost to rest and move on in clarity.
>
> Ghosts don't have mtDNA sequences.

It's this sort of deliberately evasive "misunderstanding" that makes Chung look like a shallow
sophist posting nonsense for the sheer perversity of doing it. Spouting ******** to create yet
another diversion.

> Bob's posts about mtDNA research is analogous to my posting about the latest in the culinary arts.

It would be if I relied totally on my own knowledge, maybe. That remains to be seen. But given that
I cited and quoted theoreticians in the field, researchers who work in it now (not two decades ago)
and religious leaders who formulate the issue differently than Chung, it looks like several good
minds arrayed against Chung's "You can't tell me anything..." attitude.

As slackwit Chung is so fond of implying, the truth is independent of the teller. Poor Chung doesn't
like me for all the times I've highlighted his quackery and lying. That translates automatically
into his snide efforts to disregard and denigrate what I write here. But the poor guy can't
distinguish between even the sort of limited scholarship newsgroups facilitate, and the full-time
job of pointing out his fraudulences. Shallow 100% Chung sees the universe in two dimensions.

>>>>Your effort to practice the dharma diligently and fully would be entirely down to you as an
>>>>individual. However, once on the path, one generates compassion for all sentient beings, and
>>>>this also works hand in hand with the Wisdom aspect of the Path. The two wings of the Path are
>>>>Wisdom and Compassion.
>>>
>>>It seems your dharma path is divided. Which wing will you choose?
>>
>>As I pointed out (you must have missed it) the two work hand in hand, symbiotically.
>
> But you are only one person. What of the wing not taken?

Could Chung be more superficial? One has to choose between wisdom and compassion? Can't pursue
both as interrelated elements of the life well-lived? It appears to tell more about Chung than he
wants told.

>>>Truth is the thing that we are discussing at this moment.
>>
>>It is only a 'thing' in a purely abstract sense in the act of mentation. The 'thought' - truth is
>>not the same as actual 'truth'.
>
> For a person with the gift of truth discernment, there is only truth.

So Chung once again tells the world that his understanding is perfect truth. This is one of his
favorite starting points. If anyone disagrees, he insists. If they point out that he's saying he's
perfect and that's obviously not the case, he says of course he's not perfect, only Jesus is. But no
real commitment to the single "truth" he likes to says exists.

>>>Then why are we discussing this thing we call truth?
>>
>>You tell me. You seem to be obsessed with the delusion that you 'know'
>>it.
>
> Glad you agree that truth is something that can be discussed.

Zowie. Another glancing blow from Chung. Chung says he knows "truth" and when it's pointed out to
him that he's obsessed with it, he "triumphs" by making an unrelated statement and declaring himself
victorious.

>>>For those with the gift of truth discernment, truth is a very real and visible thing.
>>
>>And yet you cannot point to it can you?
>
> I have but you refused to look.

Chung's idea of pointing to the truth is to spout his religious madness. He's constitutionally
unable to grasp the notion that the unprovable can't be regarded as "truth." By definition.

>>>Your perceptions are colored by your apparent inability to discern the truth.
>>
>>Only apparent to you and those who might share your delusions.
>
> We number in the millions. Shouldn't you follow buddha's wisdom of adapting?

Wonderful. Chung is now advocating "truth by volume." There are millions of wackos like him, he
says, so that's proof enough for Mozz to consider it truth. <LOL> Could Chung be more superficial?

>>>>Another error. You seem to enjoy the fantasy that you might have such power, I am sorry to
>>>>disappoint you again.
>>>>
>>>Being able to discern the truth is not a power, Mozz.

<LOL> Chung slip-slide in its purest form. Disagreement for the sheer delight of doing it.

>>If you truly can discern the truth, why are you making so many mistakes in your opinions about me?
>
> Opinions aren't mistakes, Mozz.

<LOL> Hilarious. Notice how Chung avoids answering a direct question. As the Chungster is so willing
to say too often, the untruthful have a hard time answering direct questions.

But let me help. Note that Mozz said "mistakes in your opinions." He was talking about *the content*
of the opinion. The material that comprises Chung's too-often wrong opinions.

>>>>What was your motivation for looking this up on Google?
>>
>>>I am a truth seeker, Mozz.
>>
>>Please explain so everyone who reads this may see, how that would relate to you dredging up old
>>posts totally unrelated to you or the purview of this discussion, and as if that wasn't enough,
>>then choosing to arbitrarily throw in a question relating to my request for legal advice on a
>>highly charged and personal matter that my family sought over a serious complication surrounding
>>the arrangements directly after my father's tragic death last year?
>
> This serves to illustrate truth seeking. The question was not arbitrary. How you answered the
> question would have revealed whether you truly have "let go of all attachments." It is quite
> telling that instead of answering the question, you now seem to be bristling with indignation.

Poor ethically bankrupt Chung can't see how vile he is. His quest to diminish others by humiliation
and scratching sensitive scars is perfectly fine with him.

I wonder what his reaction would be to posting personal information about him would be. Would he
congratulate the poster who describes the details of his firing in Ocala for seeking the truth?
Would he thank the person who raised the issue of his telling the AMA patently false information
about himself? Oh, wait. No, he wouldn't. Would he congratulate the person who points out that he
filed a false report with the police? Well, no.

>>This seems to herald a highly unskillful and sinister turn in proceedings Andrew and leaves a very
>>nasty taste in the mouth.
>
> What you taste is truth. Truth is bitter for the untruthful.

The truly sad part of this is that Chung once again is trying to use the fundamental decency of
others against them. His depraved use of the vulnerabilities of others to conquer them while
mouthing his platitudes about humility and service are telling. They point out his willingness to
inflict emotional pain for the sake of "winning" in newsgroup combat that he creates.

The "truth" that Mozz feels here is the fact of Chung's vicious action to make Mozz retreat from
further abuse at Chung's hands. The "truth" is that Chung shows his mean-spiritedness in unfortunate
detail. The "truth" is that Chung is a fraud, but there's no news there.

Bob
 
Hello Bob,

Thanks for your insightful contributions. You make some excellent points that are hard for Andrew
to refute.

>>>>Observations are proof of an observer's insight.
>>>
>>>No, merely the observers 'interpretation' of events.
>
>The final problem with Chung's insistence about his "observations" is that they're value judgments
>and not simply an emotionless description devoid of bias. Chung's loaded "observations" show little
>insight. They're generally ammunition in what he likes to call "discussions" but are more
>realistically described as duels, irrespective of whether the other person understands that up
>front. His "observations" take several forms including statements that include the expression "I
>sense that..." where saying truthfully that is simply impossible - as when he says he can "sense"
>someone's physical condition or that he can "sense" someone's mental state - diagnoses without
>examination.
>
>Chung has three modes:
>
>1) Direct replies to medical questions wherein he used to give detailed medical advice but where he
> now seems to offer less information. Presumably he finally spoke with an attorney about his
> behavior rather than spout his TV-lawyerisms.
>
>2) Platitudes and wildly over-the-top praise offered to those blind souls who agree with his
> religious mouthings. If they agree with his demented vision, he tells them they have the "gift
> of truth discernment" like him, and are wonderful people who will reap their rightful place
> with God.
>
>3) Dueling and denigrating mode wherein he will say virtually anything to try to embarrass,
> humiliate, demean, overwhelm or otherwise triumph over anyone who doesn't agree with everything
> he says. He uses his socks and alter egos as further tools to post vicious, scurrilous,
> generally untrue innuendoes intended to put the other person on the defensive. Chung will
> usually deny that this is what's happening.

Undeniably true. I have witnessed these three characteristic modes.

>>>Can you prove that George Lucas was not the unconscious 'vessel' to transmit to the world a new
>>>religion? Can you prove that The Force is not real? Some people do believe in The Force. Like
>>>your Bible stories there are authoratitive mythological texts - 'the Star Wars movies'.
>>
>> Are you not digressing?
>
>Well, in a word, no. It's a rather potent question raising the subject of the true nature of myth
>and legend. It raises the question of the sources of human creation myths and moral tales. It's
>actually a rather poignant evocation of the difference between fact and truth.

You have grasped my point precisely Bob.

>>>For you there is Satan and his demonic hordes of darkness. For them they have The Emperor and
>>>Vader and the Dark Lords of the Sith.... You have your saints and spiritual crusaders, they have
>>>their Jedi Knights...
>>>
>>>Can you see the parallels? What is really the difference between them and you?
>>
>> The gift of truth discernment.
>
>And this is a classic Chung evasion. Utterly unresponsive in that Chung hasn't demonstrated any
>such ability. His "observations" are usually far from the reality. His "I sense" comments are
>usually erroneous. His evasions and dishonesty are provable and explain his "truth discernment"
>failures. He believes this fallacy about himself, all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.

Again, an accurate observation.

>>>>Is it your claim that the handle chose you?
>>>
>>>My friend who built the system here chose it without my input.
>>>
>>>>Sounds like you need many people to help you reach enlightenment.
>>>
>>>How on earth did you get from the setting up of a computer system to enlightenment? (LOL)
>>
>> What are you looking at right now?
>
><LOL> Another wave of Chung's "truth discernment?" Perfect non sequitur. Fool.

I personally find it unhelpful to use such direct personal insults in response to Andrew's passive-
aggressive tendencies myself, however I agree with main point - perfect non sequitur.

>>>>>And yet you did not witness any of the Biblical stories.
>>>>
>>>>I have witnessed both the discovery of and the genetic sequence of the mtDNA of Eve.
>>>>
>>>>Is Eve a character of one of the stories of the Holy Bible ?
>>>
>>>Try reading Bob's posts on the latest scientific pronouncements on that research. Then you may
>>>lay that ghost to rest and move on in clarity.
>>
>> Ghosts don't have mtDNA sequences.
>
>It's this sort of deliberately evasive "misunderstanding" that makes Chung look like a shallow
>sophist posting nonsense for the sheer perversity of doing it. Spouting ******** to create yet
>another diversion.

Andrew does seem to wilfully avoid the main point once again.

>> Bob's posts about mtDNA research is analogous to my posting about the latest in the
>> culinary arts.
>
>It would be if I relied totally on my own knowledge, maybe. That remains to be seen. But given that
>I cited and quoted theoreticians in the field, researchers who work in it now (not two decades ago)
>and religious leaders who formulate the issue differently than Chung, it looks like several good
>minds arrayed against Chung's "You can't tell me anything..." attitude.
>
>As slackwit Chung is so fond of implying, the truth is independent of the teller. Poor Chung
>doesn't like me for all the times I've highlighted his quackery and lying. That translates
>automatically into his snide efforts to disregard and denigrate what I write here. But the poor guy
>can't distinguish between even the sort of limited scholarship newsgroups facilitate, and the full-
>time job of pointing out his fraudulences. Shallow 100% Chung sees the universe in two dimensions.
>
>>>>>Your effort to practice the dharma diligently and fully would be entirely down to you as an
>>>>>individual. However, once on the path, one generates compassion for all sentient beings, and
>>>>>this also works hand in hand with the Wisdom aspect of the Path. The two wings of the Path are
>>>>>Wisdom and Compassion.
>>>>
>>>>It seems your dharma path is divided. Which wing will you choose?
>>>
>>>As I pointed out (you must have missed it) the two work hand in hand, symbiotically.
>>
>> But you are only one person. What of the wing not taken?
>
>Could Chung be more superficial? One has to choose between wisdom and compassion? Can't pursue
>both as interrelated elements of the life well-lived? It appears to tell more about Chung than he
>wants told.

You have grasped the simple point to dharma practice that Andrew has once again singularly refused
to acknowledge. One can only conclude that Andrew wishes to 'duel' rather than 'discuss' anything
worthwhile.

>>>>Truth is the thing that we are discussing at this moment.
>>>
>>>It is only a 'thing' in a purely abstract sense in the act of mentation. The 'thought' - truth is
>>>not the same as actual 'truth'.
>>
>> For a person with the gift of truth discernment, there is only truth.
>
>So Chung once again tells the world that his understanding is perfect truth. This is one of his
>favorite starting points. If anyone disagrees, he insists. If they point out that he's saying he's
>perfect and that's obviously not the case, he says of course he's not perfect, only Jesus is. But
>no real commitment to the single "truth" he likes to says exists.

There does seem to be a clear contradicary double standard going on.

>>>>Then why are we discussing this thing we call truth?
>>>
>>>You tell me. You seem to be obsessed with the delusion that you 'know'
>>>it.
>>
>> Glad you agree that truth is something that can be discussed.
>
>Zowie. Another glancing blow from Chung. Chung says he knows "truth" and when it's pointed out to
>him that he's obsessed with it, he "triumphs" by making an unrelated statement and declaring
>himself victorious.

It does seem to be the case. Rather childish behaviour really.

>>>>For those with the gift of truth discernment, truth is a very real and visible thing.
>>>
>>>And yet you cannot point to it can you?
>>
>> I have but you refused to look.
>
>Chung's idea of pointing to the truth is to spout his religious madness. He's constitutionally
>unable to grasp the notion that the unprovable can't be regarded as "truth." By definition.

I keep trying to make that very point to Andrew. It seems to fall on deaf ears.

>>>>Your perceptions are colored by your apparent inability to discern the truth.
>>>
>>>Only apparent to you and those who might share your delusions.
>>
>> We number in the millions. Shouldn't you follow buddha's wisdom of adapting?
>
>Wonderful. Chung is now advocating "truth by volume." There are millions of wackos like him, he
>says, so that's proof enough for Mozz to consider it truth. <LOL> Could Chung be more superficial?

He displays an incredible lack of wisdom, I agree.

>>>>>Another error. You seem to enjoy the fantasy that you might have such power, I am sorry to
>>>>>disappoint you again.
>>>>>
>>>>Being able to discern the truth is not a power, Mozz.
>
><LOL> Chung slip-slide in its purest form. Disagreement for the sheer delight of doing it.

I had noticed.

>>>If you truly can discern the truth, why are you making so many mistakes in your opinions
>>>about me?
>>
>> Opinions aren't mistakes, Mozz.
>
><LOL> Hilarious. Notice how Chung avoids answering a direct question. As the Chungster is so
>willing to say too often, the untruthful have a hard time answering direct questions.
>
>But let me help. Note that Mozz said "mistakes in your opinions." He was talking about *the
>content* of the opinion. The material that comprises Chung's too-often wrong opinions.

Surely he must have understood that I meant 'content of opinions'...surely?

>>>>>What was your motivation for looking this up on Google?
>>>
>>>>I am a truth seeker, Mozz.
>>>
>>>Please explain so everyone who reads this may see, how that would relate to you dredging up old
>>>posts totally unrelated to you or the purview of this discussion, and as if that wasn't enough,
>>>then choosing to arbitrarily throw in a question relating to my request for legal advice on a
>>>highly charged and personal matter that my family sought over a serious complication surrounding
>>>the arrangements directly after my father's tragic death last year?
>>
>> This serves to illustrate truth seeking. The question was not arbitrary. How you answered the
>> question would have revealed whether you truly have "let go of all attachments." It is quite
>> telling that instead of answering the question, you now seem to be bristling with indignation.
>
>Poor ethically bankrupt Chung can't see how vile he is. His quest to diminish others by humiliation
>and scratching sensitive scars is perfectly fine with him.

I find his behaviour here reprehensible. I emailed a copy of this part of the post to my father's
vicar, who is a very respected christian theologian and clergyman who I know very well. He called me
this morning to say how sorry he was that someone professing to be a christian could possibly be so
ignorant and lacking in compassion. He agreed that it was tasteless, lacked sensitivity and had
nothing at all to do with the Gospel message of the love of Christ.

>I wonder what his reaction would be to posting personal information about him would be. Would he
>congratulate the poster who describes the details of his firing in Ocala for seeking the truth?
>Would he thank the person who raised the issue of his telling the AMA patently false information
>about himself? Oh, wait. No, he wouldn't. Would he congratulate the person who points out that he
>filed a false report with the police? Well, no.

I would never stoop so low.

>>>This seems to herald a highly unskillful and sinister turn in proceedings Andrew and leaves a
>>>very nasty taste in the mouth.
>>
>> What you taste is truth. Truth is bitter for the untruthful.

My father's vicar found this comment particularly nauseating and far from any sense of a
Christian ethic.

>The truly sad part of this is that Chung once again is trying to use the fundamental decency of
>others against them. His depraved use of the vulnerabilities of others to conquer them while
>mouthing his platitudes about humility and service are telling. They point out his willingness to
>inflict emotional pain for the sake of "winning" in newsgroup combat that he creates.
>
>The "truth" that Mozz feels here is the fact of Chung's vicious action to make Mozz retreat from
>further abuse at Chung's hands. The "truth" is that Chung shows his mean-spiritedness in
>unfortunate detail.

Sadly, this does seem to be the case Bob.

>Bob

Thanks again for your kind support.

Mozz x
 
>Mozz wrote:
>>
>> >Hi Mozz whom I love,
>>
>> Unconditionally?
>
>Yes.

After your posts re: my father's death I feel that your idea of unconditional 'love' is like the
'love' expressed by the 'christians' of the Inquisition towards their unfortuate victims.

>> >> I believe that you are deluded in your theism. Because I can not 'prove' the non existence of
>> >> God does not invalidate my belief.
>> >
>> >It does mean that you have no basis for your diagnosis.
>>
>> My basis lies in the indisputable truth of emptiness.
>
>Is it your claim that all who believe in God are deluded?

All who inhabit the realm of samsara suffer delusion. To be believe in a God where it is unnecessary
to do so is layering an even deeper strata of delusion from which, in the final analyses, you will
need to extinguish.

>> It is my observation. I have sought God out, and discovered that He does not exist.
>
>A man pans for gold but does not find any. Does that mean gold does not exist?

One can point to gold and empirically prove it's existence. You can not point to God and show me
he exists.

>> Witness buddhist truth discernment in action :)
>
>I don't see it.

There is much you seem blind to Andrew, including compassion and wisdom from your own traditions
teachings.

>> I sought out God, and instead found Emptiness.
>
>Perhaps you did not look hard enough.

Perhaps you need to look harder...and then your illusions may waft away like mists and you too may
perceive the truth.

>Has either ****** or Caligula been reincarnated?

As far as buddhist philosophy is concerned, all sentient beings are reborn. However, depending on
their karma, they will not necessarily be reborn as a human being. Infact, according to tradition, a
human birth is very rare and precious. It is akin to a single turtle in the vast ocean, and one
small golden hoop floating on the surface. The chances of being reborn as a human if you have not
applied the dharma in your life are similar to that of the turtle surfacing and putting his head
through the golden hoop.

>> By moving to a better vantage point I am suggesting you 'let go' of what appears to be your total
>> inability to think around your Christian extremist blind-spot and accept the possibility of other
>> valid interpretations. This would take courage for someone so defended as yourself.
>
>The same could be said of you.

The difference being that I have already experienced being a Christian, taking confirmation, going
to church every week, praying to the Lord, doing charitable works in His name etc etc... You have
not tried Dharma practice for any extended period to be in a position to comment.

>> Can you prove that George Lucas was not the unconscious 'vessel' to transmit to the world a new
>> religion? Can you prove that The Force is not real? Some people do believe in The Force. Like
>> your Bible stories there are authoratitive mythological texts - 'the Star Wars movies'.
>
>Are you not digressing?

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.

>> For you there is Satan and his demonic hordes of darkness. For them they have The Emperor and
>> Vader and the Dark Lords of the Sith.... You have your saints and spiritual crusaders, they have
>> their Jedi Knights...
>>
>> Can you see the parallels? What is really the difference between them and you?
>
>The gift of truth discernment.

Can you demonstrate that you have such a gift, or must I simply take your word for it?

>> How on earth did you get from the setting up of a computer system to enlightenment? (LOL)
>
>What are you looking at right now?

A computer monitor. Now answer the question as posed properly, how do you equate my friend who is a
computer expert, setting up this system for me and me needing lots of people to help me reach
enlightenment?

>> Try reading Bob's posts on the latest scientific pronouncements on that research. Then you may
>> lay that ghost to rest and move on in clarity.
>
>Ghosts don't have mtDNA sequences. Bob's posts about mtDNA research is analogous to my posting
>about the latest in the culinary arts.

From that evasive answer I conclude that you don't want to read Bob's posts as they are too
threatening to your fragile sense of reality.

>> No, the dharma are the teachings.
>
>Was it not your assertion earlier that an enlightened person will pick dharma back up after being
>reincarnated?

If they are reborn and were previously sincerely engaged in dharma practice, there will be imprints
left in the subtle consciousness.

>> May I respectfully point out that a fundamental aspect of buddhist practice is 'letting go of
>> attachment'.
>
>You seem quite attached to your disbelief.

What have you 'let go' of in order to be a Christian?

>But you are only one person. What of the wing not taken?

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?

>For a person with the gift of truth discernment, there is only truth.

The truth is that all things change.

>Glad you agree that truth is something that can be discussed.

As an abstract concept only.

>> And yet you cannot point to it can you?
>
>I have but you refused to look.

I could not see anything where you were pointing other than the mind of a conjurer - smoke
and mirrors.

>We number in the millions. Shouldn't you follow buddha's wisdom of adapting?

Are you seriously claiming that amount equals truth? Remember Andrew, things change....religions
rise, religions fall....the great wheel turns...

>> If you truly can discern the truth, why are you making so many mistakes in your opinions
>> about me?
>
>Opinions aren't mistakes, Mozz.

If you truly can discern the truth, why are you making so many mistakes in 'the content' of your
opinions about me?

>> >> What was your motivation for looking this up on Google?
>>
>> >I am a truth seeker, Mozz.
>>
>> Please explain so everyone who reads this may see, how that would relate to you dredging up old
>> posts totally unrelated to you or the purview of this discussion, and as if that wasn't enough,
>> then choosing to arbitrarily throw in a question relating to my request for legal advice on a
>> highly charged and personal matter that my family sought over a serious complication surrounding
>> the arrangements directly after my father's tragic death last year?
>
>This serves to illustrate truth seeking. The question was not arbitrary. How you answered the
>question would have revealed whether you truly have "let go of all attachments." It is quite
>telling that instead of answering the question, you now seem to be bristling with indignation.

I have never claimed to have successfully 'let go of all attachments', all I have claimed was the
truth that I am on the Path and that it is a lifetime's process.

The useage of personal unsolicited data about a highly emotive subject merely for you to casually
divine whether or not you feel I have 'let go' of my grief around the loss of my dad is
contemptable.

>What you taste is truth. Truth is bitter for the untruthful.

I emailed the post to my father's vicar for a different Christian's perspective (my father was a
highly respected church warden) and he phoned me this morning in shock at what he described as
your 'utter lack of ethical understanding regarding Christian morality and love'. He said he was
very sorry that someone claiming to be a fellow Christian could display such ignorance and a
patent lack of empathy or compassion. He said it was tasteless and had nothing to do with God's
love through Christ.

>> I cannot deny that I am disappointed by this as the loss of my father (who I loved deeply) is
>> still very much in my thoughts.

>Sorry to hear that you are still suffering.

If you were sorry you would not have brought it up.

Mozz
 
Mozz wrote:

> Hello Bob,
>
> Thanks for your insightful contributions. You make some excellent points that are hard for Andrew
> to refute.

In truth, Bob Pastorio is very easy to refute.

It has been clearly proven that he has no credibility:

http://www.heartmdphd.com/libel.asp

Truth is powerful.

You remain in my prayers to God, dear neighbor, in Christ's name.

May you accept Christ as your Lord and Savior, someday, so that you too will be able to wield
the truth.

Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/

**
Who is the humblest person in the universe?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?W1F522557

What is all this about?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?A26B16397

Is this spam?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?N69721867
 
Hi Mozz, whom I love,

Mozz wrote:

>
> >> Unconditionally?
> >
> >Yes.
>
> After your posts re: my father's death I feel that your idea of unconditional 'love' is like the
> 'love' expressed by the 'christians' of the Inquisition towards their unfortuate victims.
>

Your reaction to unconditional love is curious.

>
> >> >> I believe that you are deluded in your theism. Because I can not 'prove' the non existence
> >> >> of God does not invalidate my belief.
> >> >
> >> >It does mean that you have no basis for your diagnosis.
> >>
> >> My basis lies in the indisputable truth of emptiness.
> >
> >Is it your claim that all who believe in God are deluded?
>
> All who inhabit the realm of samsara suffer delusion. To be believe in a God where it is
> unnecessary to do so is layering an even deeper strata of delusion from which, in the final
> analyses, you will need to extinguish.
>

So your claim is that all who are not buddhist are deluded.

In short, you believe that everyone participating in discussions here at SMC is deluded
except for you.

> >> It is my observation. I have sought God out, and discovered that He does not exist.
> >
> >A man pans for gold but does not find any. Does that mean gold does not exist?
>
> One can point to gold and empirically prove it's existence.

Not if one is unsuccessful at obtaining a sample.

> You can not point to God and show me he exists.
>

Nor can I point to Pluto to show you it exists.

> >> Witness buddhist truth discernment in action :)
> >
> >I don't see it.
>
> There is much you seem blind to Andrew, including compassion and wisdom from your own traditions
> teachings.
>

There is much you seem to be imagining, Mozz.

> >> I sought out God, and instead found Emptiness.
> >
> >Perhaps you did not look hard enough.
>
> Perhaps you need to look harder...and then your illusions may waft away like mists and you too may
> perceive the truth.
>

You are the one that have not found God.

>
> >Has either ****** or Caligula been reincarnated?
>
> As far as buddhist philosophy is concerned, all sentient beings are reborn. However, depending on
> their karma, they will not necessarily be reborn as a human being. Infact, according to tradition,
> a human birth is very rare and precious. It is akin to a single turtle in the vast ocean, and one
> small golden hoop floating on the surface. The chances of being reborn as a human if you have not
> applied the dharma in your life are similar to that of the turtle surfacing and putting his head
> through the golden hoop.
>

So you believe it is possible that your Dalai Lama may actually be ****** reincarnated?

>
> >> By moving to a better vantage point I am suggesting you 'let go' of what appears to be your
> >> total inability to think around your Christian extremist blind-spot and accept the possibility
> >> of other valid interpretations. This would take courage for someone so defended as yourself.
> >
> >The same could be said of you.
>
> The difference being that I have already experienced being a Christian, taking confirmation, going
> to church every week, praying to the Lord, doing charitable works in His name etc etc... You have
> not tried Dharma practice for any extended period to be in a position to comment.
>

It is my belief that those who are truly Christian would not be capable of ever renouncing Christ as
you have done.

>
> >> Can you prove that George Lucas was not the unconscious 'vessel' to transmit to the world a new
> >> religion? Can you prove that The Force is not real? Some people do believe in The Force. Like
> >> your Bible stories there are authoratitive mythological texts - 'the Star Wars movies'.
> >
> >Are you not digressing?
>
> 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.

>
> >> For you there is Satan and his demonic hordes of darkness. For them they have The Emperor and
> >> Vader and the Dark Lords of the Sith.... You have your saints and spiritual crusaders, they
> >> have their Jedi Knights...
> >>
> >> Can you see the parallels? What is really the difference between them and you?
> >
> >The gift of truth discernment.
>
> Can you demonstrate that you have such a gift, or must I simply take your word for it?
>

Yes I can and have.

>
> >> How on earth did you get from the setting up of a computer system to enlightenment? (LOL)
> >
> >What are you looking at right now?
>
> A computer monitor. Now answer the question as posed properly, how do you equate my friend who is
> a computer expert, setting up this system for me and me needing lots of people to help me reach
> enlightenment?
>

Enlightenment is reached through the extraction of information from your environment. Your computer
system is helping your achieve this and you needed help with your computer system.

>
> >> Try reading Bob's posts on the latest scientific pronouncements on that research. Then you may
> >> lay that ghost to rest and move on in clarity.
> >
> >Ghosts don't have mtDNA sequences. Bob's posts about mtDNA research is analogous to my posting
> >about the latest in the culinary arts.
>
> From that evasive answer I conclude that you don't want to read Bob's posts as they are too
> threatening to your fragile sense of reality.
>

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.

> >> No, the dharma are the teachings.
> >
> >Was it not your assertion earlier that an enlightened person will pick dharma back up after being
> >reincarnated?
>
> If they are reborn and were previously sincerely engaged in dharma practice, there will be
> imprints left in the subtle consciousness.
>

Then why claim that a reincarnated Siddhartha practicing dharma in a mental hospital would be
impossible?

>
> >> May I respectfully point out that a fundamental aspect of buddhist practice is 'letting go of
> >> attachment'.
> >
> >You seem quite attached to your disbelief.
>
> What have you 'let go' of in order to be a Christian?
>

My disbelief.

If I were attached to my disbelief, I would not have been able to accept Christ as my personal Lord
and Savior.

>
> >But you are only one person. What of the wing not taken?
>
> 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.

>
> >For a person with the gift of truth discernment, there is only truth.
>
> The truth is that all things change.
>

The truth is that not all things change.

>
> >Glad you agree that truth is something that can be discussed.
>
> As an abstract concept only.
>

Truth remains.

>
> >> And yet you cannot point to it can you?
> >
> >I have but you refused to look.
>
> I could not see anything where you were pointing other than the mind of a conjurer - smoke and
> mirrors.
>

You remain in denial.

> >We number in the millions. Shouldn't you follow buddha's wisdom of adapting?
>
> Are you seriously claiming that amount equals truth?

No.

> Remember Andrew, things change....religions rise, religions fall....the great wheel turns...
>

God does not change.

Universal constants (speed of light, pi, etc.) do not change.

Truth does not change.

> >> If you truly can discern the truth, why are you making so many mistakes in your opinions
> >> about me?
> >
> >Opinions aren't mistakes, Mozz.
>
> 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.

>
> >> >> What was your motivation for looking this up on Google?
> >>
> >> >I am a truth seeker, Mozz.
> >>
> >> Please explain so everyone who reads this may see, how that would relate to you dredging up old
> >> posts totally unrelated to you or the purview of this discussion, and as if that wasn't enough,
> >> then choosing to arbitrarily throw in a question relating to my request for legal advice on a
> >> highly charged and personal matter that my family sought over a serious complication
> >> surrounding the arrangements directly after my father's tragic death last year?
> >
> >This serves to illustrate truth seeking. The question was not arbitrary. How you answered the
> >question would have revealed whether you truly have "let go of all attachments." It is quite
> >telling that instead of answering the question, you now seem to be bristling with indignation.
>
> I have never claimed to have successfully 'let go of all attachments', all I have claimed was the
> truth that I am on the Path and that it is a lifetime's process.
>

Your reaction below suggests you will never "let go of all attachments" in this lifetime or an
infinite number of lifetimes.

> The useage of personal unsolicited data about a highly emotive subject merely for you to casually
> divine whether or not you feel I have 'let go' of my grief around the loss of my dad is
> contemptable.
>

Your reaction does not bode well for your dharma, Mozz.

>
> >What you taste is truth. Truth is bitter for the untruthful.
>
> I emailed the post to my father's vicar for a different Christian's perspective (my father was a
> highly respected church warden) and he phoned me this morning in shock at what he described as
> your 'utter lack of ethical understanding regarding Christian morality and love'. He said he was
> very sorry that someone claiming to be a fellow Christian could display such ignorance and a
> patent lack of empathy or compassion. He said it was tasteless and had nothing to do with God's
> love through Christ.
>

Sounds like your father's vicar is not familiar with the teachings of Jesus Christ regarding the
judging of others.

This does not bode well for the faith of your father's vicar.

> >> I cannot deny that I am disappointed by this as the loss of my father (who I loved deeply) is
> >> still very much in my thoughts.
>
> >Sorry to hear that you are still suffering.
>
> If you were sorry you would not have brought it up.
>

If I did not bring it up, I would not have learned of your continued suffering.

>
> Mozz

You remain in my prayers to God, dear neighbor, in Christ's name.

Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/

**
Who is the humblest person in the universe?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?W1F522557

What is all this about?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?A26B16397

Is this spam?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?N69721867
 
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:

> Mozz wrote:
>=20
>>Hello Bob,
>>
>>Thanks for your insightful contributions. You make some excellent points that are hard for Andrew
>>to refute.
>=20
> In truth, Bob Pastorio is very easy to refute.

And yet, the greater truth is that Chung can make no refutations. He=20 has tried futile stabs and
his shabby passive-aggressive efforts, but=20 to no scholarly conclusion. He offers only his "truth
discernment"=20 that has been repeatedly shown to be merely a farce. Logic and fact=20 confound
Chung's demented and fanciful fundamentalist ravings.

No refutation in demolishing his fantasy-belief in a single biblical=20 Eve. The cited and quoted
science about "Eve" and her mtDNA I offered=20 stands unchallenged by Chung or anyone else.

No refutation in my posting that Chung is demonstrably and by=20 definition a quack.

No refutation that Chung is a liar.

And here's another one for Chung to refute. Chung has posted that=20 there's "evidence" for a global
flood as portrayed in the bible. Chung=20 appears to think that the bible sprang full-blown from
somewhere all=20 at once. Knows no history from before the Old Testament and no=20 concurrent
history. So, the flood myth.

Chung clearly hasn't heard of the Gilgamesh tale and the Sumerian=20 analogous story.

But here's a line of questioning for the cultists who assert that the=20 flood covered all the
earth. Mount Everest is 29,000 feet high. There=20 are other mountains nearly as high. If the water
covered it and them,=20 the ark would have been higher than that. How would breathing go at=20 that
altitude? How about temperature?

Even fish would die. Mingling fresh and salt water would prove fatal=20 to most of them. Perhaps the
anadromous ones could survive, but most=20 are adapted to one or the other.

All plants would die being submerged for that long. There would be=20 nothing to eat or feed the
animals for at least one growing season.

What about animals that don't live a year - insects, for example. It=20 says nothing reproduced
while on the ark.

Josephus, the Jewish historian said: "Nicolaus of Damascus, in his ninety-sixth book, hath a
particular=20 relation about them; where he speaks thus: "There is a great mountain=20 in Armenia,
over Minyas, called Baris, upon which it is reported that=20 many who fled at the time of the Deluge
were saved; and that one who=20 was carried in an ark came on shore upon the top of it; and that
the=20 remains of the timber were a great while preserved. This might be the=20 man about whom Moses
the legislator of the Jews wrote."

Nicolaus of Damascus says elsewhere: "Now the sons of Noah were three...these first of all descended
from=20 the mountains into the plains, and fixed their habitation there; and=20 persuaded others who
were greatly afraid of the lower grounds on=20 account of the flood, and so were very loath to come
down from the=20 higher places, to venture to follow their examples. Now the plain in=20 which they
first dwelt was called Shinar."

-----------------------------------
"The Flood of Genesis was a true historical event. According to=20 historians, and Bible scholars,
the date was from November in the year=20 2345 to November 2344 BC. These dates fall smack in the
middle of the=20 period in history known as the BRONZE AGE. (3000 BC to 1200 BC) This=20 was a
significant period in history. The technology to forge bronze=20 increased trade routes,
necessitated the domestication of draft=20 horses, the invention of bellows, ox carts, potters
wheels, as well as=20 the invention of the plow for cultivating the soil. These were great=20
advances. If there had been a global flood, it would have set=20 civilization back to the Stone Age
and it would have taken centuries=20 to recover what was lost.

"Written records dating from this time are, of course, not too=20 plentiful. But one cannot deny the
existence of archeological evidence=20 that many great civilizations existed in various parts of the
world at=20 the time of the Flood and continued through it. If the Noah's flood=20 had been
universal, all civilizations would have been destroyed along=20 with their inventions, language, art
and whatever other advancement=20 each unique civilization would have made. History does not reveal
gaps=20 or a large void in any of these cultures which would be the natural=20 result of a
catastrophic event such as a global flood.

"Earliest written records of an advanced civilization are those of the=20 Sumerians in Mesopotamia.
Their King Lists date to about 3350 BC. This=20 shows an ongoing civilization well through the
period of the flood.

"Egypt's history shows no record of a sudden, complete disruption by a=20 great deluge. The pyramids
and other monuments erected there before=20 the time of the flood would surely have been destroyed
(or at the very=20 least) badly damaged my a universal flood.

"China's civilization experienced a prosperous period during the Yao=20 Dynasty (between 2400 -
2200) with no record of a cataclysmic=20 interruption.

"The Minoan civilization on the island of Crete entered a cycle of=20 cultural advancement about
2500 BC. These people had already produced=20 works of art, established cities, had an alphabet and
made use of=20 bronze prior to the date of the Flood. It continued to develop and was=20 established
as a center of trade until is was destroyed by a volcano=20 in 1470 BC. Though this civilization was
based on and island, there=20 was no evidence of a flood in written or archeological evidence.

"The civilization of the Indus Valley was a thriving state in 2500 BC.=20 It boasted of two great
cities Harappa and Mohenjo-Daro. This=20 civilization rivaled that of Egypt and Mesopotamia and
continued to=20 exist uninterrupted until 1500 BC.

"More evidence is found in Phoenicia. This was a thriving trade center=20 which existed before,
during and after the flood.

"These along with other groups, the Japanese, the American Indians,=20 and the Negro tribes of
Africa, all survived the period of the Flood.=20 There is no evidence that any of these millions of
people suddenly=20 disappeared from history and then suddenly re-appeared all over the=20 world
carrying the same culture, art, language, writing and=20 architectural designs -- unique to each
civilization." <http://www.angelfire.com/ca/DeafPreterist/noah.html>

------------------------------------------
The Smithsonian says: "However, thus far, after literally hundreds of archeological=20 excavations
at different times in the Near East, no all-encompassing=20 flood stratum has ever been found.
During the 1920's, Sir Leonard=20 Woolley found a six foot thick flood layer at Ur with evidence
of=20 earlier occupations below the flood layer and later occupations above=20
it. We now know that this flood stratum was deposited by a change in=20 the course of the Euphrates
River that meandered rather widely over=20 the flood plain, much as the Mississippi River once
did before flood=20 control measures were taken. Other sites near Ur display no such=20 evidence
of a flood stratum. Another difficulty in verifying the=20 Biblical story is that the
identification of the particular mountain=20 now known as Ararat goes back to no more than a few
hundred years,=20 and, in fact, we have no idea where an ancient Mount Ararat might have=20 been
located. In addition, there is no hard evidence of an early ship=20 resting on top of any
mountain anywhere in the Near East.

"In short, it is impossible to verify the actual events recorded in=20 the Biblical account of the
flood." <http://www.2think.org/ssotb.shtml>

---------------------------------------

"The story of Noah derives from the deluge folktales of the=20 Babylonians and Sumerians. These pre-
biblical accounts, recorded on=20 cuneiform tablets, tell of an enraged multitude of deities who
bring=20 about a flood. In the earliest version, the Sumerian one, a flood is=20 decreed by an
assembly of gods. And why are the gods so angry with=20 humankind? It appears that the human
species has become numerous and=20 is making a lot of noise, thus depriving Enlil, the chief deity,
of=20 his sleep. Sleepy-eyed Enlil sends a series of lesser cataclysms, but=20 they just don't do
the trick. Having failed to quiet the mortals,=20 Enlil finally employs the ultimate divine
weapon=97a flood.

"Well known as this powerful myth must have been throughout the=20 Ancient Near East, it was
unworthy of inclusion in our Torah. What,=20 after all, was the meaning of this story? Don't awaken
God? God acts=20 capriciously? These concepts were not appropriate for our Torah, but=20 the story
was too good and too famous to dismiss. So the authors of=20 Genesis retooled the tale to teach a
lesson about righteousness." <http://www.uahc.org/torah/issue/021012.shtml>

In Genesis, one line descended from Adam is detailed as: Adam, Enoch,=20 Irad, Mehujael, Methushael,
Lamech and his three sons, Jabel, Jubal,=20 and Tubal-Cain. The author of Genesis, presumably Moses,
refers to the=20 descendants of Jabel, Jubal, and Tubal-cain as alive when he was=20 writing it.
(Genesis 4:20-22). He describes their respective=20 occupations and that they taught all who do them
contemporaneously=20 with the writing.

> It has been clearly proven that he has no credibility:

This web page is what the "scientist" Chung would offer as proof. What=20 a sad little show it is.
He even lies in quoting himself!

> http://www.heartmdphd.com/libel.asp

Yes. Please go to that page. And hit the links where I show evidence=20 that Chung is a liar, a
quack and a fraud. And see how Chung distorts=20 what's actually on the linked pages in his
descriptions - putting=20 words in my mouth. Chung offers his own proof that he's a liar. It=20
suits me to have that be there. It's a perfect illustration of his=20 deceitful ways and justifies
any imputation of his general lack of=20 integrity and frequent dishonesty.

> Truth is powerful.

Well, actual facts and demonstrable assertions are powerful. Chung has=20 all but made meaningless
the word "truth" by his deliberate falsehoods=20 and his desperate scrabblings to get away from ever
admitting error or=20 even that he has made a misstep.

> You remain in my prayers to God, dear neighbor, in Christ's name.
>=20
> May you accept Christ as your Lord and Savior, someday, so that you too=
will be able to wield
> the truth.

This is merely another example of Chung using his "religion" as an=20

skewered him in the spotlight of honesty. Poor fraudulent Chung. Hard=20 to understand why he has
this compulsion to prove his peculiar=20 infirmity with every post. Or why he tells the same
transparent=20 untruths so obsessively.

Pastorio
 
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:

> Hi Mozz, whom I love,
>
> Mozz wrote:
>
>>>>Unconditionally?
>>>
>>>Yes.
>>
>>After your posts re: my father's death I feel that your idea of unconditional 'love' is like the
>>'love' expressed by the 'christians' of the Inquisition towards their unfortuate victims.
>>
> Your reaction to unconditional love is curious.

Chung's *demonstration* of what he thinks is unconditional love is curious.

>>>A man pans for gold but does not find any. Does that mean gold does not exist?
>>
>>One can point to gold and empirically prove it's existence.
>
> Not if one is unsuccessful at obtaining a sample.

How slimy. Restated: It is possible to point to gold, it is not possible to point to God.

>>You can not point to God and show me he exists.
>
> Nor can I point to Pluto to show you it exists.

What nonsense. Of course Pluto can be pointed at. It's there, corporeal and even been photographed.

>>>Has either ****** or Caligula been reincarnated?
>>
>>As far as buddhist philosophy is concerned, all sentient beings are reborn. However, depending on
>>their karma, they will not necessarily be reborn as a human being. Infact, according to tradition,
>>a human birth is very rare and precious. It is akin to a single turtle in the vast ocean, and one
>>small golden hoop floating on the surface. The chances of being reborn as a human if you have not
>>applied the dharma in your life are similar to that of the turtle surfacing and putting his head
>>through the golden hoop.
>>
> So you believe it is possible that your Dalai Lama may actually be ****** reincarnated?

The current Dalai Lama was born while ****** was still living. Even the manipulatively obtuse Chung
must realize that reincarnation before dying is an impossibility.

> It is my belief that those who are truly Christian would not be capable of ever renouncing Christ
> as you have done.

Duh...

>>>>Can you prove that George Lucas was not the unconscious 'vessel' to transmit to the world a new
>>>>religion? Can you prove that The Force is not real? Some people do believe in The Force. Like
>>>>your Bible stories there are authoratitive mythological texts - 'the Star Wars movies'.
>>>
>>>Are you not digressing?
>>
>>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.

Translation: I don't have a good answer so I'll show you my two-step tap dance away from
the question.

>>>>How on earth did you get from the setting up of a computer system to enlightenment? (LOL)
>>>
>>>What are you looking at right now?
>>
>>A computer monitor. Now answer the question as posed properly, how do you equate my friend who is
>>a computer expert, setting up this system for me and me needing lots of people to help me reach
>>enlightenment?
>>
> Enlightenment is reached through the extraction of information from your environment. Your
> computer system is helping your achieve this and you needed help with your computer system.

<LOL> What a weak parody of logic. Using Chung's "thinking," his shirt is help for him, and his fork
and spoon, his car, his every tangible and intangible element of this world. Chung seems to imply
that his computer system sprang full-blown from his mind or something. That no other person was
instrumental in its creation and manufacture. Note that CHung implies that he doesn't need any
external agencies to his "enlightenment." <LOLOL>

>>>>Try reading Bob's posts on the latest scientific pronouncements on that research. Then you may
>>>>lay that ghost to rest and move on in clarity.
>>>
>>>Ghosts don't have mtDNA sequences. Bob's posts about mtDNA research is analogous to my posting
>>>about the latest in the culinary arts.
>>
>>From that evasive answer I conclude that you don't want to read Bob's posts as they are too
>>threatening to your fragile sense of reality.
>>
> 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.

<LOLOL> Right. Another of Chung's "I sense..." posts where he feels permitted to say anything to
elevate himself and denigrate some other person. What a hoot. The one thing that has utterly escaped
Chung through all his posts is a sense of humor. A sense of adventure. A sense of fun. It's grand
fun puncturing this hottest of all hot air balloons; this feeble Chung.

Does anyone ever get the feeling that there's joy in Chung's attenuated little world? Has there ever
been a laugh that wasn't malicious and at someone else's expense? Does anyone think that Chung ever
surrenders to a full-hearted laugh at the sheer delight of being alive?

Ecclesiastes 8:15 "Then I commended mirth, because a man hath no better thing under the sun than to
eat, and to drink, and to be merry: for that shall abide with him of his labor for the days of his
life, which God giveth him under the sun."

>>>But you are only one person. What of the wing not taken?
>>
>>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.

And no matter the value system, they're doomed to be forever incomplete. Not everyone succeeds at
their chosen direction. Not everyone understands the true underlying principles. Note Chung's
literally incredible protestations that he's a Christian. Note the vast discrepancy between what he
claims and what he does.

>>>For a person with the gift of truth discernment, there is only truth.
>>
>>The truth is that all things change.
>>
> The truth is that not all things change.

Were that even remotely so, time travel would be possible. Perhaps in Chung's enormous educational
background, he encountered the concept of entropy. Probably not since he believes in the literalness
of the biblical accounts of Eve and the flood.

>>>Glad you agree that truth is something that can be discussed.
>>
>>As an abstract concept only.
>>
> Truth remains.

And Chung's non sequiturs go on forever...

>>>We number in the millions. Shouldn't you follow buddha's wisdom of adapting?
>>
>>Are you seriously claiming that amount equals truth?
>
> No.

<LOL> No. Says Chung. But offers nothing further. And he questions anyone else's
credibility... <LOL>

Chung says his brand of wackiness is popular with millions. Given something over 6 billion on earth,
it becomes a pretty small percentage of the whole. Thank God.

>>Remember Andrew, things change....religions rise, religions fall....the great wheel turns...
>
> God does not change.

Actually, God has changed several times. Changed his mind, changed his courses of action. Changed
his values. Banishment from Eden, Sodom and Gomorrah, Abraham and Isaac.

> Universal constants (speed of light, pi, etc.) do not change.

Speed of light is not a universal constant, not even by the old definitions of it being a localized
phenomenon. Might want to look at some of the recent experiments with "wavicles" and temporal
displacement. Google it. Isn't that what Chung always tells people?

Pi is a *numerical* constant. Given the information used as a premise, the answer is a
function of it.

> Truth does not change.

<whisper> Heisenberg, Einstein, Schroedinger... <whisper off>

>>>>If you truly can discern the truth, why are you making so many mistakes in your opinions
>>>>about me?
>>>
>>>Opinions aren't mistakes, Mozz.
>>
>>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.

<LOL> Can Chung really be so obtuse...?

It's the *content* of the "opinions" and "observations" that's wrong. Not the mere fact of an
"opinion" or an "observation."

>>>>>>What was your motivation for looking this up on Google?
>>>>
>>>>>I am a truth seeker, Mozz.
>>>>
>>>>Please explain so everyone who reads this may see, how that would relate to you dredging up old
>>>>posts totally unrelated to you or the purview of this discussion, and as if that wasn't enough,
>>>>then choosing to arbitrarily throw in a question relating to my request for legal advice on a
>>>>highly charged and personal matter that my family sought over a serious complication surrounding
>>>>the arrangements directly after my father's tragic death last year?
>>>
>>>This serves to illustrate truth seeking. The question was not arbitrary. How you answered the
>>>question would have revealed whether you truly have "let go of all attachments." It is quite
>>>telling that instead of answering the question, you now seem to be bristling with indignation.

Chung is a nasty, nasty piece of work. This is the beginning of stalking and harassing rather than
merely "discussing" as he would, in his hypocrisy, have readers believe.

>>I have never claimed to have successfully 'let go of all attachments', all I have claimed was the
>>truth that I am on the Path and that it is a lifetime's process.
>>
> Your reaction below suggests you will never "let go of all attachments" in this lifetime or an
> infinite number of lifetimes.
>
>>The useage of personal unsolicited data about a highly emotive subject merely for you to casually
>>divine whether or not you feel I have 'let go' of my grief around the loss of my dad is
>>contemptable.
>>
> Your reaction does not bode well for your dharma, Mozz.

Chung has not the tiniest notion about what dharma is. It's merely a continuation of his method of
ridicule, posturing and vicious maligning of others.

>>>What you taste is truth. Truth is bitter for the untruthful.
>>
>>I emailed the post to my father's vicar for a different Christian's perspective (my father was a
>>highly respected church warden) and he phoned me this morning in shock at what he described as
>>your 'utter lack of ethical understanding regarding Christian morality and love'. He said he was
>>very sorry that someone claiming to be a fellow Christian could display such ignorance and a
>>patent lack of empathy or compassion. He said it was tasteless and had nothing to do with God's
>>love through Christ.
>>
> Sounds like your father's vicar is not familiar with the teachings of Jesus Christ regarding the
> judging of others.

Chung can't be referring to the Jesus in the bible. He's the one that suggested we love others, but
not just by words. He suggested that peacemakers are blessed rather than the maligners and
combatants like Chung.

>>>>I cannot deny that I am disappointed by this as the loss of my father (who I loved deeply) is
>>>>still very much in my thoughts.
>>
>>>Sorry to hear that you are still suffering.
>>
>>If you were sorry you would not have brought it up.
>>
> If I did not bring it up, I would not have learned of your continued suffering.

But the final, great truth is that it's not Chung's business whether Mozz is suffering. Particularly
since Chung's malice shows that what he wanted to do was inflict yet more suffering, not to
alleviate it. It's a cosmic irony that Chung is a member of the healing arts who feels that hurting
is acceptable. What Hippocratic oath...? NOt from the fraud Chung.

> You remain in my prayers to God, dear neighbor, in Christ's name.

And this is the terminal falsity from Chung. As though prayer and Christian action somehow condones
deliberately trying to inflict pain on others.

Chung is a pure fake.

Bob
 
Hello Andrew,

>Your reaction to unconditional love is curious.

My curiousity is borne of knowing how you demonstrate such love.

>> All who inhabit the realm of samsara suffer delusion. To be believe in a God
>> where it is unnecessary to do so is layering an even deeper strata of delusion
>> from which, in the final analyses, you will need to extinguish.
>>
>
>So your claim is that all who are not buddhist are deluded.

Anyone who has not realized emptiness suffers in the realm of samsara.

>In short, you believe that everyone participating in discussions here at SMC is
>deluded except for you.

I also suffer in the samsaric realm, however thanks to the dharma teachings I
recognise the lack of wisdom to adding any further layers of delusion such as the
unnecessary conjuring of a creator deity.

>Not if one is unsuccessful at obtaining a sample.

It is possible to point to gold, it is not possible to point to God.

>Nor can I point to Pluto to show you it exists.

Yes you can. Is it your contention that Pluto does not exist? I can show you a
photograph if you wish?

>You are the one that have not found God.

Can you supply a photograph of God?

>So you believe it is possible that your Dalai Lama may actually be ******
>reincarnated?

No. ****** was still alive when His Holiness was born.

>It is my belief that those who are truly Christian would not be capable of ever
>renouncing Christ as you have done.

All things change.

>> 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?

>> 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.

>Enlightenment is reached through the extraction of information from your
>environment. Your computer system is helping your achieve this and you needed
>help with your computer system.

And your original point to this was what exactly?

>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. His
points are generally well made and demonstrate a rigorous respect for accuracy
and intellect. Instead of trading insults I suggest you try to debate with him.
What have you got to fear?

>Then why claim that a reincarnated Siddhartha practicing dharma in a mental
>hospital would be impossible?

Siddhartha was not reborn according to tradition, as he had completed his work by
delivering the dharma. When he died he entered Nirvana. (Nirvana - literally,
snuffed out; like the flame on a candle)

>> 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.

>The truth is that not all things change.

To simply resist the truth will not alter it Andrew.
>
>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."

>> 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?

>> I have never claimed to have successfully 'let go of all attachments', all I
>> have claimed was the truth that I am on the Path and that it is a lifetime's
>> process.
>>
>
>Your reaction below suggests you will never "let go of all attachments" in this
>lifetime or an infinite number of lifetimes.

(LOL) You are very funny Andrew.

>> The useage of personal unsolicited data about a highly emotive subject merely
>> for you to casually divine whether or not you feel I have 'let go' of my grief
>> around the loss of my dad is contemptable.
>>
>
>Your reaction does not bode well for your dharma, Mozz.

How strange, considering my teacher Geshe Tashi, a student of His Holiness and a
highly respected buddhist monk whom monitors my dharma practice every week thinks
otherwise!!!

Hmmm....I wonder who I should take most notice of...the experienced Tibetan monk
or the confused fundamentalist christian extremist? ;-)

>Sounds like your father's vicar is not familiar with the teachings of Jesus
>Christ regarding the judging of others.

He was not judging, merely making an 'observation' like you do Andrew. ;-)

>This does not bode well for the faith of your father's vicar.

'Look to the beam in thine own eye first....'

>> >Sorry to hear that you are still suffering.
>>
>> If you were sorry you would not have brought it up.
>
>If I did not bring it up, I would not have learned of your continued suffering.

And your wish to learn of my continued suffering is greater than any concern for
stirring up recent grief of a dead parent. What a wonderful demonstration of your
Christian love for me.

In my meditation and dharma practice with my teacher today I have discussed my
feelings around this issue and I forgive you Andrew. You remain in my prayers.

I have researched a little and found some interesting questions about the Bible
which I would like you to clear up -

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. 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???

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.

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
3:18 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."

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.

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."

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."

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.

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.

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
4:9 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.

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.

Do you agree the Bible is far from infallible Andrew? If not, can you explain
why? And can you comment on each of the nine points above to shed light on what
seems to be 'errors' in God's book?

Respectfully,
 
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:

> Hello Andrew,
>
> >Your reaction to unconditional love is curious.
>
> My curiousity is borne of knowing how you demonstrate such love.
>

You probably meant "My curious reaction." I guess you have not fully regained
your composure yet.

Perhaps, you should meditate and pray to yourself here before reading any
further.

>
> >> All who inhabit the realm of samsara suffer delusion. To be believe in a God
> >> where it is unnecessary to do so is layering an even deeper strata of
> >> delusion from which, in the final analyses, you will need to extinguish.
> >>
> >
> >So your claim is that all who are not buddhist are deluded.
>
> Anyone who has not realized emptiness suffers in the realm of samsara.
>

So your claim is that all who are not "realized" buddhists are deluded.

>
> >In short, you believe that everyone participating in discussions here at SMC
> >is deluded except for you.
>
> I also suffer in the samsaric realm, however thanks to the dharma teachings I
> recognise the lack of wisdom to adding any further layers of delusion such as
> the unnecessary conjuring of a creator deity.
>

In short, you believe every participant here at SMC is deluded including
yourself.

>
> >Not if one is unsuccessful at obtaining a sample.
>
> 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.

>
> >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?
>

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.

> >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 is my belief that those who are truly Christian would not be capable of
> >ever renouncing Christ as you have done.
>
> All things change.
>

Truth does not.

>
> >> 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.

> >Enlightenment is reached through the extraction of information from your
> >environment. Your computer system is helping your achieve this and you needed
> >help with your computer system.
>
> And your original point to this was what exactly?
>

To answer your question.

>
> >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.

> 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

> 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 :)

> What have you got to fear?

God.

> >Then why claim that a reincarnated Siddhartha practicing dharma in a mental
> >hospital would be impossible?
>
> Siddhartha was not reborn according to tradition, as he had completed his work
> by delivering the dharma. When he died he entered Nirvana. (Nirvana -
> literally, snuffed out; like the flame on a candle)
>

So you are aspiring to be "snuffed out" ?

>
> >> 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 ?

> >The truth is that not all things change.
>
> To simply resist the truth will not alter it Andrew.

Correct.

>
> >
> >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.

> >> 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.

>
> >> I have never claimed to have successfully 'let go of all attachments', all I
> >> have claimed was the truth that I am on the Path and that it is a lifetime's
> >> process.
> >>
> >
> >Your reaction below suggests you will never "let go of all attachments" in
> >this lifetime or an infinite number of lifetimes.
>
> (LOL) You are very funny Andrew.
>

I write truthfully.

> >> The useage of personal unsolicited data about a highly emotive subject
> >> merely for you to casually divine whether or not you feel I have 'let go' of
> >> my grief around the loss of my dad is contemptable.
> >>
> >Your reaction does not bode well for your dharma, Mozz.
>
> How strange, considering my teacher Geshe Tashi, a student of His Holiness and
> a highly respected buddhist monk whom monitors my dharma practice every week
> thinks otherwise!!!
>

Sounds like you continue to depend heavily on others for your enlightenment
despite your protestations to the contrary.

>
> Hmmm....I wonder who I should take most notice of...the experienced Tibetan
> monk or the confused fundamentalist christian extremist? ;-)
>

Has your teacher read our discussions?

> >Sounds like your father's vicar is not familiar with the teachings of Jesus
> >Christ regarding the judging of others.
>
> He was not judging, merely making an 'observation' like you do Andrew. ;-)
>

You choose your definitions in a manner that suits your argument.

This does not bode well for your dharma.

>
> >This does not bode well for the faith of your father's vicar.
>
> 'Look to the beam in thine own eye first....'
>

Better not to judge either yourself or others.

> >> >Sorry to hear that you are still suffering.
> >>
> >> If you were sorry you would not have brought it up.
> >
> >If I did not bring it up, I would not have learned of your continued
> >suffering.
>
> And your wish to learn of my continued suffering is greater than any concern
> for stirring up recent grief of a dead parent.

I had hoped that your dharma had taken you past your grief.

> What a wonderful demonstration of your Christian love for me.
>

God is wonderful.

> In my meditation and dharma practice with my teacher today I have discussed my
> feelings around this issue and I forgive you Andrew. You remain in my prayers.
>

As you remain in my prayers to God, in Christ's name.

Out of my own curiousity, has your teacher read our discussions?

> 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?

>
> 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.

> 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.

>
> 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.

>
> 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.

>
> 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.

>
> 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.

>
> 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.

>
> 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.

>
> 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.

> 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.

>
> 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.

> 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.

>
> Respectfully,
>

Truly, you remain in my prayers to God, Mozz.

Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/

**
Who is the humblest person in the universe?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?W1F522557

What is all this about?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?A26B16397

Is this spam?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?N69721867
 
On Sat, 6 Mar 2004 02:58:58 -0500, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
(in article <[email protected]>):

[Snip]

> Mozz wrote:

[Snip]

>> I have researched a little and found some interesting questions about the
>> Bible which I would like you to clear up -

Perhaps I could help out here, Mozz. There are two simple rules:

1. The Bible is always right.
2. If the Bible is wrong, see Rule Number 1.

By meditating on this you can arrive at the following related rules:

1a. Chung is always right. 2a. If Chung is wrong, see Rule Number 1a.

I have found that keeping these two rules in mind will save you a lot wasted
effort in discussions, such as they are, with Chung.

HTH

--
Steve

Weeding the Lord's Vineyards Since 2003
 
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
 
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
 
Hi Andrew,

I hope everything's okay with you and your family.

>It is my hope you have regained your composure.

I have, thanks for your concern.

>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.

Respectfully, I am not interested in whatever seems to be
the problem between you and Bob. As I said, I take people as
I find them and from my experience so far Bob has come
across as a nice person with a sharp intelligence as well as
a great sense of humour. I like Bob.

>You probably meant "My curious reaction." I guess you have
>not fully regained your composure yet.

(LOL) Thanks for rephrasing it, you are indeed correct in
what I meant...

>Perhaps, you should meditate and pray to yourself here
>before reading any further.

(LOL) Pray to myself!!! Very funny!!! ;-)

Hey, do you want some time out here from taking cheap shots
at me to play 'let's pretend' and imagine you are in
communion with a deity? (LOL) ;-)

>> >So your claim is that all who are not buddhist are
>> >deluded.

Tradition claims that all who have not reached full
enlightenment (realized emptiness), buddhist or non-
buddhist, suffer in the samsaric realm.

>So your claim is that all who are not "realized" buddhists
>are deluded.

Anyone who has not 'realized emptiness' suffers while caught
in this samsaric realm.

>> >In short, you believe that everyone participating in
>> >discussions here at SMC is deluded except for you.

I have never claimed to have realized emptiness. I am a
humble practitioner at the start of his journey.

>In short, you believe every participant here at SMC is
>deluded including yourself.

I cannot say whether anyone participating here at SMC has
realized emptiness or not, but those who have not are, like
me and you, caught in the realm of delusion that is samsara.

>It is not possible to point out a tree to a blind man.

It is possible to lead a blind man to 'touch' a tree. To
'hear' the wind rustle through the branches and leaves. To
'smell' the pollen from a tree in springtime bloom. To
'taste' of the fruit from a tree. All these experiences are
enough to conclusively prove the existence of a tree to a
blind man.

You can not point to God so that I can 'see' him. I cannot
'hear' a God. I cannot 'touch' a God or 'taste' a God.
Therefore, despite you going red in the face, stamping your
feet in frustration, trying desperately hard to convince me
otherwise, you can only admit to 'belief' in something
completely intangible.

>When you visit me, I will point up at where I believe Pluto
>is located but you will not see it.

Ever heard of a telescope? Can you show me God or Heaven
through a telescope? Has the Hubble orbital telescope found
any photos of God waving back yet?

>> I can show you a photograph if you wish?
>>
>
>I can show you a Bible if you wish me to.

And that would prove what exactly? An
anthropological/cultural record of collected early middle
eastern mythologies and beliefs, brimming with
contradictions and innacuracies. Is that the basis of the
God you are trying to show me?

>> Can you supply a photograph of God?
>>
>
>No.
>
>But, I can show you His Word.

Respectfully, all you can show me is the Bible. (see above)

>> >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?

No, the positive karma needed to be acrued to be reborn as a
Dalai Lama would be quite considerable over many many
lifetimes according to tradition.

>> I am still waiting for a convincing demonstration.
>>
>
>It is your choice to remain unconvinced. You have God's
>gift of free will.

I have free will and intelligence, and I remain unconvinced.

>> >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.

That is a value judgement - this does not bode well for
your soul.

>> 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

If that is your judgement, so be it. He remains credible as
far as I am concerned.

>> 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 :)

That is your choice to make, however, it does not seem in
harmony with Christian wisdom.

>So you are aspiring to be "snuffed out" ?

To end all delusion in samsara. To 'snuff out' desire,
attachment and aversion, yes.

>> The beauty of Dharma practice is that both compassion and
>> wisdom are cultivated together.
>>
>
>Then why two wings and not one path ?

Like your doctrine of the Trinity, three are one, there are
two aspects to the ONE path.

>Having the gift of truth discernment is not the same as
>having the gift of infallibility.

I know you are fallible, you frequently demonstrate such
here on these boards.

>I write truthfully.

I believe you believe in what you write. That does not make
the content of what you write 'truth' though my friend.

>Sounds like you continue to depend heavily on others for
>your enlightenment despite your protestations to the
>contrary.

I have no problem with acknowledging the help of others in
my life Andrew.

>> Hmmm....I wonder who I should take most notice of...the
>> experienced Tibetan monk or the confused fundamentalist
>> christian extremist? ;-)
>>
>
>Has your teacher read our discussions?

No, I have discussed them with him.

>> He was not judging, merely making an 'observation' like
>> you do Andrew. ;-)
>>
>
>You choose your definitions in a manner that suits your
>argument.

Pot/kettle interface malfunction I think!!!!!!!!!

>Better not to judge either yourself or others.

I agree, and yet you continue to do just that with your
contentious 'observations'.

>> 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?

No.

>> 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.

Can you point me to the direct quotation from The Bible
where it is stated that God has permitted contradiction?

>> 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.

I sense your desperation. You are clutching at straws
Andrew!

>> 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.

Can you point me to the direct quotation from The Bible
where it is stated that God has permitted contradiction?

>> 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.

Can you point me to the direct quotation from The Bible
where it is stated that God has permitted contradiction?

>> 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.

Can you point me to the direct quotation from The Bible
where it is stated that God has permitted contradiction?

>>
>> 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.

Can you point me to the direct quotation from The Bible
where it is stated that God has permitted contradiction?

>>
>> 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.

Can you point me to the direct quotation from The Bible
where it is stated that God has permitted contradiction?

>>
>> 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.

Can you point me to the direct quotation from The Bible
where it is stated that God has permitted contradiction?

>
>>
>> 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.

Can you point me to the direct quotation from The Bible
where it is stated that God has permitted contradiction?

>>
>> 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.

Can you point me to the direct quotation from The Bible
where it is stated that God has permitted contradiction?

>
>> 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.

You are saying it is true that there are errors?

>> Do you agree the Bible is far from infallible Andrew?
>
>No.

(LOL) the fallibility is proven above. Open you eyes.

>
>> If not, can you explain why?
>
>Yes. I discern truth in the "erroneous" written accounts by
>the various witnesses of the Bible.

So we should believe it's true 'despite the multitude of
erroneous reports and contradictions' because you say
it's true?

Really, Andrew...surely you're brighter than that?

Hoping that Andrew finds the dharma path for himself soon.
 
Andrew,

Here's a few more points regarding the subjects of Eve and
The Flood I would be interested in your comments on?

GE 2:15-23, 3:1-5, 1TI 2:14 Eve was created after Adam had
already been given the prohibition about eating the
forbidden fruit. Eve believed the serpent (the craftiest of
all of God's wild creatures) when he assured her that she
would become wise and would not die if she ate the fruit.
Eve has been blamed for causing Adam to fall, and ultimately
for the fall of mankind. (Note: Prior to eating the
forbidden fruit, Adam and Eve would have had no knowledge of
right and wrong; they would not have known that it was a sin
to disobey God or to obey the serpent. After they ate the
forbidden fruit, God placed a guard around the "Tree of
Eternal Life" to keep them from eating its fruit. He could
have done the same for the "Tree of Knowledge of Good and
Evil" before Adam and Eve disobeyed. In addition, even
though the prohibition regarding the forbidden fruit was
made to Adam before Eve came on the scene, Eve has been
blamed for the Fall; 1TI 2:14 says: "... Adam was not
deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a
transgressor.")

GE 3:1-5 The serpent speaks human language (presumably
Hebrew).

GE 3:14-16 God curses the serpent, Eve, and Adam for what
they have done. (Note: This is inconsistent with God's
omniscience; God should have known full well, ahead of time,
what the outcome would be. Since God created the three as
well as the Tree of Knowledge, he is ultimately responsible
for the Fall.)

GE 4:15 A mark is placed on Cain as a distinctive
identifying symbol when there were only three (known)
persons on earth.

GE 4:17 Cain builds and populates a whole city in only two
generations!

GE 6:4 There were giants on the earth at one time. (Note: No
evidence exists to supports this assertion.)

GE 6:5 God is unhappy with the wickedness of man and decides
to flood the earth to eliminate mankind. All living things
including plants, animals, women and innocent children are
also exterminated. (Note: This is like burning down a house
to rid it of mice.)

GE 6:15 The size of Noah's Ark was such that there would be
about one and a half cubic feet for each pair of the
2,000,000 to 5,000,000 species to be taken aboard.

GE 7:17-19 The flood covered the entire earth at the same
time. (Note: There is no evidence of a worldwide flood, but
rather of many, widespread, but local floods.)

GE 7:19-20 The flood covered the earth with water fifteen
cubits (twenty plus feet) above the highest mountains.(Note:
This would require steady, worldwide rainfall at the rate of
about 6 inches per minute, 360 inches per hour, 8640 inches
per day--for 40 days and nights--so as to cover the entire
earth with an endless ocean 5 miles deep, thus burying
29,000 ft. Mt. Everest under 22 ft. of water. How did the
author know the depth of the water? Did Noah take soundings?
And where has all this water gone?)

GE 8:20 Noah's first recorded action following the flood is
to sacrifice one of every clean animal and bird. (Since so
few animals were saved, this could be considered rather
wasteful and defeating--especially given that the stated
purpose of taking the animals aboard the Ark was to keep
them alive [GE 6:20].

GE 9:12-16 God first creates the rainbow. (Note: Apparently
the laws having to do with refraction of light were null and
void prior to this time.)

Respectfully,
 
"Bob (this one)" <> wrote in message .com...
> 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.

Bob..... prior to loosing terribly in a discussion with you,
Chung hadn't pulled out the religious zealotry that he did
on Sept 12/03 in this thread:

http://www.google.ca/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-
ED.CARDIOLOGY%2Bauthor:*Chung*%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-
8%26oe%3DUTF-
8%26as_drrb%3Db%26as_mind%3D12%26as_minm%3D9%26as_miny%3D20-
03%26as_maxd%3D6%26as_maxm%3D9%26as_maxy%3D2003%26selm%3Da4-
b1bd78.0309122116.16d53846%2540posting.google.com%26rnum%3D2

he did however gently mention God in his August post.... God
willing.......

SCI.MED.CARDIOLOGY+author:*Chung*&start=10&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-
8&oe=UTF-
8&as_drrb=b&as_mind=12&as_minm=8&as_miny=2003&as_maxd=6&as_-
maxm=8&as_maxy=2003&selm=a7cd9c35.0308081510.cd3564c%40post-
ing.google.com&rnum=19

i find it to be most convenient that Andrew has "turned to
god in earnest" of late go back a year on his posting
history.... show me ONE mention of god

this is all more fakery and posturing
 
Hi Mozz,

Mozz wrote:
>
> Hi Andrew,
>
> I hope everything's okay with you and your family.

They are. Thanks for the well wishes.

May God bless you and yours, in Christ's name.

> >It is my hope you have regained your composure.
>
> I have, thanks for your concern.

Good.

> >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.
>
> Respectfully, I am not interested in whatever seems to be
> the problem between you and Bob. As I said, I take people
> as I find them and from my experience so far Bob has come
> across as a nice person with a sharp intelligence as well
> as a great sense of humour. I like Bob.

He has my love as do you.

> >You probably meant "My curious reaction." I guess you
> >have not fully regained your composure yet.
>
> (LOL) Thanks for rephrasing it, you are indeed correct in
> what I meant...
>
> >Perhaps, you should meditate and pray to yourself here
> >before reading any further.
>
> (LOL) Pray to myself!!! Very funny!!! ;-)
>
> Hey, do you want some time out here from taking cheap
> shots at me to play 'let's pretend' and imagine you are in
> communion with a deity? (LOL) ;-)

Truth is hardly cheap.

> >> >So your claim is that all who are not buddhist are
> >> >deluded.
>
> Tradition claims that all who have not reached full
> enlightenment (realized emptiness), buddhist or non-
> buddhist, suffer in the samsaric realm.
>
> >So your claim is that all who are not "realized"
> >buddhists are deluded.
>
> Anyone who has not 'realized emptiness' suffers while
> caught in this samsaric realm.
>
> >> >In short, you believe that everyone participating in
> >> >discussions here at SMC is deluded except for you.
>
> I have never claimed to have realized emptiness. I am a
> humble practitioner at the start of his journey.
>
> >In short, you believe every participant here at SMC is
> >deluded including yourself.
>
> I cannot say whether anyone participating here at SMC has
> realized emptiness or not, but those who have not are,
> like me and you, caught in the realm of delusion that is
> samsara.

Ok, you believe that all here at SMC who have not realized
emptiness are deluded and this includes yourself.

> >It is not possible to point out a tree to a blind man.
>
> It is possible to lead a blind man to 'touch' a tree. To
> 'hear' the wind rustle through the branches and leaves. To
> 'smell' the pollen from a tree in springtime bloom. To
> 'taste' of the fruit from a tree. All these experiences
> are enough to conclusively prove the existence of a tree
> to a blind man.

Why all three senses for the blind man? Why not just one?

> You can not point to God so that I can 'see' him.

I do not have the power of time travel.

> I cannot 'hear' a God.

Are you deaf?

> I cannot 'touch' a God or 'taste' a God.

Do you lack the senses of touch and taste?

> Therefore, despite you going red in the face, stamping
> your feet in frustration, trying desperately hard to
> convince me otherwise,

I am not here to convince you but only to inform you.

> you can only admit to 'belief' in something completely
> intangible.

I know what I know.

> >When you visit me, I will point up at where I believe
> >Pluto is located but you will not see it.
>
> Ever heard of a telescope?

Yes. But I do not have one strong enough to allow us to
see Pluto.

> Can you show me God or Heaven through a telescope?

I can't even show you Pluto.

> Has the Hubble orbital telescope found any photos of God
> waving back yet?

When you see a photo of a house, do you not have proof of
its builder?

> >> I can show you a photograph if you wish?
> >>
> >
> >I can show you a Bible if you wish me to.
>
> And that would prove what exactly? An
> anthropological/cultural record of collected early middle
> eastern mythologies and beliefs, brimming with
> contradictions and innacuracies. Is that the basis of the
> God you are trying to show me?

It is His Word. You wrote earlier that your wanted to hear
Him.

> >> Can you supply a photograph of God?
> >>
> >
> >No.
> >
> >But, I can show you His Word.
>
> Respectfully, all you can show me is the Bible. (see
> above)

The Bible is His Word.

> >> >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?
>
> No, the positive karma needed to be acrued to be reborn as
> a Dalai Lama would be quite considerable over many many
> lifetimes according to tradition.

What happened to your believing in only that which is
tangible?

> >> I am still waiting for a convincing demonstration.
> >>
> >
> >It is your choice to remain unconvinced. You have God's
> >gift of free will.
>
> I have free will and intelligence, and I remain
> unconvinced.

It remains your choice. My only obligation, out of love, is
that you are informed about your choice.

> >> >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.
>
> That is a value judgement - this does not bode well for
> your soul.

It remains an observation.

http://www.heartmdphd.com/libel.asp

> >> 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
>
> If that is your judgement, so be it.

It remains my observation.

> He remains credible as far as I am concerned.

If that were true, why aren't you conversing with him?

Wouldn't you like for him to become enlightened?

(Witness the gift of truth discernment at work :)

> >> 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 :)
>
> That is your choice to make, however, it does not seem in
> harmony with Christian wisdom.

I remain obedient to my Lord.

> >So you are aspiring to be "snuffed out" ?
>
> To end all delusion in samsara. To 'snuff out' desire,
> attachment and aversion, yes.
>
> >> The beauty of Dharma practice is that both compassion
> >> and wisdom are cultivated together.
> >>
> >
> >Then why two wings and not one path ?
>
> Like your doctrine of the Trinity, three are one, there
> are two aspects to the ONE path.

Ok.

> >Having the gift of truth discernment is not the same as
> >having the gift of infallibility.
>
> I know you are fallible, you frequently demonstrate such
> here on these boards.

Have never claimed otherwise but...

> >I write truthfully.
>
> I believe you believe in what you write. That does
> not make the content of what you write 'truth' though
> my friend.

I continue to write truthfully.

> >Sounds like you continue to depend heavily on others for
> >your enlightenment despite your protestations to the
> >contrary.
>
> I have no problem with acknowledging the help of others in
> my life Andrew.

Glad to read this. There is hope for you after all.

> >> Hmmm....I wonder who I should take most notice of...the
> >> experienced Tibetan monk or the confused fundamentalist
> >> christian extremist? ;-)
> >>
> >
> >Has your teacher read our discussions?
>
> No, I have discussed them with him.

Was he not interested in reading the discussion firsthand?

> >> He was not judging, merely making an 'observation' like
> >> you do Andrew. ;-)
> >>
> >
> >You choose your definitions in a manner that suits your
> >argument.
>
> Pot/kettle interface malfunction I think!!!!!!!!!

The former is an observation and the latter is a judgement.

May God help you to someday discern the difference.

> >Better not to judge either yourself or others.
>
> I agree, and yet you continue to do just that with your
> contentious 'observations'.

Hardly.

> >> 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?
>
> No.
>
> >> 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.
>
> Can you point me to the direct quotation from The Bible
> where it is stated that God has permitted contradiction?

I discern it.

> >> 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.
>
> I sense your desperation. You are clutching at
> straws Andrew!

I stopped despairing when I accepted Christ as my personal
Lord and Savior.

> >> 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.
>
> Can you point me to the direct quotation from The Bible
> where it is stated that God has permitted contradiction?

I discern it.

> >> 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.
>
> Can you point me to the direct quotation from The Bible
> where it is stated that God has permitted contradiction?

I still discern it.

> >> 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.
>
> Can you point me to the direct quotation from The Bible
> where it is stated that God has permitted contradiction?

I still discern it.

> >>
> >> 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.
>
> Can you point me to the direct quotation from The Bible
> where it is stated that God has permitted contradiction?

I still discern it.

> >>
> >> 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.
>
> Can you point me to the direct quotation from The Bible
> where it is stated that God has permitted contradiction?

I still discern it.

> >>
> >> 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.
>
> Can you point me to the direct quotation from The Bible
> where it is stated that God has permitted contradiction?
>

I still discern it.

> >>
> >> 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.
>
> Can you point me to the direct quotation from The Bible
> where it is stated that God has permitted contradiction?
>
I still discern it.

> >> 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.
>
> Can you point me to the direct quotation from The Bible
> where it is stated that God has permitted contradiction?
>
I still discern it.

> >> 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.
>
> You are saying it is true that there are errors?

No, that is not what I have written.

In terms that you (and Bob Pastorio) can hopefully
understand:

When one gathers up volunteers to witness a staged event,
subsequent interviewing of these volunteers for their
truthful recollections of what they witnessed will reveal
all sorts of recall errors. This has been observed many
times by many independent observers.

Such "errors" have the utility of supporting the
authenticity of the Holy Bible.

> >> Do you agree the Bible is far from infallible Andrew?
> >
> >No.
>
> (LOL) the fallibility is proven above. Open you eyes.

What you call fallibility, is the fallibility of man and not
the fallibility of either God or His Word. This illustrates
how despite our imperfections, God is able to use us to
realize His perfect plan.

Isn't God great?

> >
> >> If not, can you explain why?
> >
> >Yes. I discern truth in the "erroneous" written accounts
> >by the various witnesses of the Bible.
>
> So we should believe it's true 'despite the multitude of
> erroneous reports and contradictions' because you say
> it's true?

You have been informed that the Holy Bible is true.

> Really, Andrew...surely you're brighter than that?

Yes, God has also given me the gift of intelligence through
the Holy Spirit.

The glory remains His now and forever.

> Hoping that Andrew finds the dharma path for himself soon.
>

Thank you for kisses :)

You remain in my prayers to God, dear neighbor, in
Christ's name.

Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/

**
Who is the humblest person in the universe?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?W1F522557

What is all this about?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?A26B16397

Is this spam?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?N69721867
 
Mozz wrote:
>
> Andrew,
>
> Here's a few more points regarding the subjects of Eve and
> The Flood I would be interested in your comments on?
>
> GE 2:15-23, 3:1-5, 1TI 2:14 Eve was created after Adam had
> already been given the prohibition about eating the
> forbidden fruit. Eve believed the serpent (the craftiest
> of all of God's wild creatures) when he assured her that
> she would become wise and would not die if she ate the
> fruit. Eve has been blamed for causing Adam to fall, and
> ultimately for the fall of mankind. (Note: Prior to eating
> the forbidden fruit, Adam and Eve would have had no
> knowledge of right and wrong; they would not have known
> that it was a sin to disobey God or to obey the serpent.
> After they ate the forbidden fruit, God placed a guard
> around the "Tree of Eternal Life" to keep them from eating
> its fruit. He could have done the same for the "Tree of
> Knowledge of Good and Evil" before Adam and Eve disobeyed.
> In addition, even though the prohibition regarding the
> forbidden fruit was made to Adam before Eve came on the
> scene, Eve has been blamed for the Fall; 1TI 2:14 says:
> "... Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and
> became a transgressor.")
>
> GE 3:1-5 The serpent speaks human language (presumably
> Hebrew).
>
> GE 3:14-16 God curses the serpent, Eve, and Adam for what
> they have done. (Note: This is inconsistent with God's
> omniscience; God should have known full well, ahead of
> time, what the outcome would be. Since God created the
> three as well as the Tree of Knowledge, he is ultimately
> responsible for the Fall.)
>
> GE 4:15 A mark is placed on Cain as a distinctive
> identifying symbol when there were only three (known)
> persons on earth.
>
> GE 4:17 Cain builds and populates a whole city in only two
> generations!
>
> GE 6:4 There were giants on the earth at one time. (Note:
> No evidence exists to supports this assertion.)
>
> GE 6:5 God is unhappy with the wickedness of man and
> decides to flood the earth to eliminate mankind. All
> living things including plants, animals, women and
> innocent children are also exterminated. (Note: This is
> like burning down a house to rid it of mice.)
>
> GE 6:15 The size of Noah's Ark was such that there would
> be about one and a half cubic feet for each pair of the
> 2,000,000 to 5,000,000 species to be taken aboard.
>
> GE 7:17-19 The flood covered the entire earth at the same
> time. (Note: There is no evidence of a worldwide flood,
> but rather of many, widespread, but local floods.)
>
> GE 7:19-20 The flood covered the earth with water fifteen
> cubits (twenty plus feet) above the highest
> mountains.(Note: This would require steady, worldwide
> rainfall at the rate of about 6 inches per minute, 360
> inches per hour, 8640 inches per day--for 40 days and nights--
> so as to cover the entire earth with an endless ocean 5
> miles deep, thus burying 29,000 ft. Mt. Everest under 22
> ft. of water. How did the author know the depth of the
> water? Did Noah take soundings? And where has all this
> water gone?)
>
> GE 8:20 Noah's first recorded action following the flood
> is to sacrifice one of every clean animal and bird. (Since
> so few animals were saved, this could be considered rather
> wasteful and defeating--especially given that the stated
> purpose of taking the animals aboard the Ark was to keep
> them alive [GE 6:20].
>
> GE 9:12-16 God first creates the rainbow. (Note:
> Apparently the laws having to do with refraction of light
> were null and void prior to this time.)
>
> Respectfully,
>

With God, all things are possible.

With man, the writing/telling of all things could be
distorted.

All things including man's distortions fulfill God's
purpose.

God is truth.

In truth, not all things change.

(witness the gift of truth discernment at work :)

You remain in my prayers, dear Mozz, in Christ's name.

Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/

**
Who is the humblest person in the universe?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?W1F522557

What is all this about?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?A26B16397

Is this spam?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?N69721867