Was Jesus Compassionate



Ok Andrew,

Lets take the Flood as an example to test what you say.

>> 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?)

>With God, all things are possible.
>
>With man, the writing/telling of all things could be
>distorted.

Are you saying you believe there might well have been a
'world wide' flood that covered 'all' the earth - as
reported in the Talmud - despite the science? Yes or no?

Or were the Biblical authors in error - distorting the
'facts'? Yes or no?

If so, how far might they have distorted the facts in your
'discernment'?

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

So basically you are saying you are prepared to accept
anything, however ridiculous and patently mythical as long
as you believe it's the word of God?

Respectfully,
 
Hello Andrew, my Christian friend,

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

How many times do you need this spelt out? ALL beings caught
in the eternal wheel of delusion that is samsara are
suffering from attachment, aversion and ignorance of the
truth that is the wisdom realizing emptiness. With
meditation practice one can begin to experience the gradual
falling away of these levels of ignorance and as soon as one
has done so, they have taken their first step on the Path.

>> >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?

Pick one, any one you like! They are all valid.

>> You can not point to God so that I can 'see' him.
>
>I do not have the power of time travel.

Why bother with time travel? I thought it was your
contention that God never changed???

See the gift of Buddhist truth discernment in action ;-)

>> I cannot 'hear' a God.
>
>Are you deaf?

No. I used to work at Abbey Road Studios as a sound
engineer, so my hearing is pretty well attuned and yet I
still can't hear God!!!

>> I cannot 'touch' a God or 'taste' a God.
>
>Do you lack the senses of touch and taste?

breakfast. Still can't touch or taste God.

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

You cannot 'inform' with authority unless you provide
convincing evidence.

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

I do not dispute that you know what you know - however, what
you know is not the same as what is objective truth. This
you cannot dispute.

>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.

Is it you view that God is 'spacially' further away than
Pluto then?

>> 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?

The Universe was not 'built'. Speak to your physicist father
for a sensible explanation.

>> 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.

I have read the stories in the Bible, and like watching Star
Wars, I read about a God (The Force) and lots of battles
between goodies and baddies etc - but it was all just myth -
entertaining none the less.

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

His Holiness 'is' tangible! You could go and shake his hand!

>> 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 been better informed by my theological studies and
practice previous to our discussions. I appreciate your
sentiment though.

>> 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?

Bob and I have conversed.

>Wouldn't you like for him to become enlightened?

I would like all beings to reach their ultimate potential.

In buddhism we do not proselytize. If people hear the
dharma, witness buddhists and are inspired by their living,
and that is enough to motivate them to seek teachings then
we are always happy to help. If people aren't interested
yet, then that's ok. You can't force people to practice
spirital paths!!!

>(Witness the gift of truth discernment at work :)

Errrr.............where was that then? :)

>> That is your choice to make, however, it does not seem in
>> harmony with Christian wisdom.
>
>I remain obedient to my Lord.

Obedient to your own idea about what you think the Lord
means to you is all you can say in truth.

>Was he not interested in reading the discussion firsthand?

He is a busy man with many responsibilities. I have
more important things to discuss with him at our
valuable meetings.

>> >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.

Respectfully, you are deluding yourself that your
'observations' are content free when infact they are
brimming with value judgements. This does not bode well for
your soul.

>I discern it.

>> >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.

Especially when no Gospel author can agree on 'crucial'
facts like Jesus' last words on the cross!!! Or who was
actually present at the crucifixion etc!!! Things that would
be 'crucial' to them if true! Stretching the bounds of
credibility to breaking point!!!

>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?

Isn't human self deception amazing.

>You have been informed that the Holy Bible is true.

I have also been informed by others that it is a fiction.

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

Intelligence is not wisdom.

Your God has given you intelligence, my Dharma has
cultivated Wisdom.

Respectfully,
 
On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 13:11:01 +0000, Mozz <[email protected]> wrote:

>Ok Andrew,
>
>Lets take the Flood as an example to test what you say.
>
>>> 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?)
>
>>With God, all things are possible.
>>
>>With man, the writing/telling of all things could be
>>distorted.
>
>Are you saying you believe there might well have been a
>'world wide' flood that covered 'all' the earth - as
>reported in the Talmud - despite the science? Yes or no?
>
>Or were the Biblical authors in error - distorting the
>'facts'? Yes or no?
>
>If so, how far might they have distorted the facts in your
>'discernment'?
>
>>All things including man's distortions fulfill God's
>>purpose.
>
>So basically you are saying you are prepared to accept
>anything, however ridiculous and patently mythical as long
>as you believe it's the word of God?
>
>Respectfully,
>

Dear Mozz,

The Christian religion does not stand or fall on the
historical accuracy of the stories in Genesis. The book of
Genesis is not a science textbook. It is a collection of
stories about the relationship between God and man. Whether
creation took seven 24 hour days to accomplish or took
billions of years to accomplish does not change the fact
that it was accomplished. God's time is not the same as
human time.

The presence of these stories in the Bible does serve and
fulfill God's purpose as a history of man's attempt to
understand and relate to God. Getting all wrapped up about
scientific details here is silly. The stories are not
about science.

John
 
Hi John,

Thanks for your post.

I agree entirely with your sentiment. I too respect the
mythic role stories play in religious texts. Although I
personally do not believe in God, I still respect the worth
of the moral tales etc...

My reason for pointing these 'scientific' and rational
analyses was because Andrew claims the gift of truth
discernment, and has insisted that these events actually
'did' occur - despite modern thinking to the contrary, and
that you or I are categorically 'wrong' to think otherwise.

You sound like a reasonable person John, can you understand
my concern at Andrew's approach here?

Respectfully,

>Dear Mozz,
>
>The Christian religion does not stand or fall on the
>historical accuracy of the stories in Genesis. The book of
>Genesis is not a science textbook. It is a collection of
>stories about the relationship between God and man. Whether
>creation took seven 24 hour days to accomplish or took
>billions of years to accomplish does not change the fact
>that it was accomplished. God's time is not the same as
>human time.
>
>The presence of these stories in the Bible does serve and
>fulfill God's purpose as a history of man's attempt to
>understand and relate to God. Getting all wrapped up about
>scientific details here is silly. The stories are not
>about science.
>
>John
 
>> Are you saying you believe there might well have been a
>> 'world wide' flood that covered 'all' the earth - as
>> reported in the Talmud - despite the science? Yes or no?
>>
>
>I sense that God is more than able to flood the entire
>earth. Afterall, He made the universe out of nothing.

So that's a 'yes'? You do believe that there was a total
world wide flood despite the evidence to the contrary? And
you don't accept that the Genesis 'stories' are simply
'stories'?

>> Or were the Biblical authors in error - distorting the
>> 'facts'? Yes or no?
>>
>
>Though the writers of the Bible were fallible. The Bible is
>Holy and infallible.

You will explain that paradox I'm sure...The WRITERS who
WROTE the CONTENT of the Bible were FALLIBLE (ie: prone to
error) yet the Bible is INFALLIBLE even though we come to
KNOW the Bible through it's CONTENT???

>> If so, how far might they have distorted the facts in
>> your 'discernment'?
>>
>
>Only God knows. I do not have the gift of time travel to go
>back with sounding gear to measure the water level over the
>peak of Mount Everest when the waters crested.

I thought you claimed the gift of truth discernment? Is it
true that the facts were distorted or not? You are usually
much less circumspect about your 'observations'.

>> So basically you are saying you are prepared to accept
>> anything, however ridiculous and patently mythical as
>> long as you believe it's the word of God?
>>
>
>Yes. This is called faith.

Yes, blind faith - the death of the intellect and the abode
of the cretin. Certainly no way to honour your Lord!!! He,
after all (as far as you are concerned) gave you the gift of
'intelligence'!!!

>Fwiw, even before I accepted Christ as my Lord and Savior,
>my sense of the Holy Bible with each reading only
>reaffirmed that in truth God's Word was neither ridiculous
>nor mythical.

Why are you so afraid of this concept of myth? Have you not
heard of mythological truths? If something is mythological,
it does not mean it no longer has any meaning.

>To compare, the city newpaper contained things that I could
>discern (thanks to my gift of truth discernment from the
>Holy Spirit) as ridiculous and patently mythical.

I think you are muddling up 'mythical' with 'false or
invalid'.

Respectfully,
 
Hi Mozz, whom I love,

I am pleased that God has allowed us to continue our
discussions.

He remains great.

All praises to Him now and forever, in Christ's name.

Amen.

Mozz wrote:

> Ok Andrew,
>
> Lets take the Flood as an example to test what you say.
>

May God help me answer your questions truthfully.

>
> >> 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?)
>
> >With God, all things are possible.
> >
> >With man, the writing/telling of all things could be
> >distorted.
>
> Are you saying you believe there might well have been a
> 'world wide' flood that covered 'all' the earth - as
> reported in the Talmud - despite the science? Yes or no?
>

I sense that God is more than able to flood the entire
earth. Afterall, He made the universe out of nothing.

>
> Or were the Biblical authors in error - distorting the
> 'facts'? Yes or no?
>

Though the writers of the Bible were fallible. The Bible is
Holy and infallible.

>
> If so, how far might they have distorted the facts in your
> 'discernment'?
>

Only God knows. I do not have the gift of time travel to go
back with sounding gear to measure the water level over the
peak of Mount Everest when the waters crested.

>
> >All things including man's distortions fulfill God's
> >purpose.
>
> So basically you are saying you are prepared to accept
> anything, however ridiculous and patently mythical as long
> as you believe it's the word of God?
>

Yes. This is called faith.

Fwiw, even before I accepted Christ as my Lord and Savior,
my sense of the Holy Bible with each reading only reaffirmed
that in truth God's Word was neither ridiculous nor
mythical. To compare, the city newpaper contained things
that I could discern (thanks to my gift of truth discernment
from the Holy Spirit) as ridiculous and patently mythical.

>
> Respectfully,
>

Thanks for the kisses :)

You remain in my prayers to God, neighbor whom I love, 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
 
Hi dear Mozz, whom I love,

I trust God has kept you and yours doing well.

He is great.

Mozz wrote:

> Hello Andrew, my Christian friend,
>

I am glad you realize that I am not your foe.

>
> >Ok, you believe that all here at SMC who have not
> >realized emptiness are deluded and this includes
> >yourself.
>
> How many times do you need this spelt out? ALL beings
> caught in the eternal wheel of delusion that is samsara
> are suffering from attachment, aversion and ignorance of
> the truth that is the wisdom realizing emptiness. With
> meditation practice one can begin to experience the
> gradual falling away of these levels of ignorance and as
> soon as one has done so, they have taken their first step
> on the Path.
>

Wasn't that what I wrote :) ?

>
> >> >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?
>
> Pick one, any one you like! They are all valid.
>

So you would agree that if the blind man touches a tree but
is unable to either hear, smell, or taste the tree, that
this should be enough to prove to the man that the tree
exists? That the information from one sense is enough?

>
> >> You can not point to God so that I can 'see' him.
> >
> >I do not have the power of time travel.
>
> Why bother with time travel?

With time travel, we could go back to when Lord Jesus walked
the earth as a flesh and blood son of man. Then I would
point Him out to you. We could then both shake His hand and
say hello to Him. He would tell you Himself that because we
knew Him that we now know His Father.

> I thought it was your contention that God never changed???

I know that God does not change.

> See the gift of Buddhist truth discernment in action ;-)
>

Where ?

>
> >> I cannot 'hear' a God.
> >
> >Are you deaf?
>
> No. I used to work at Abbey Road Studios as a sound
> engineer, so my hearing is pretty well attuned and yet I
> still can't hear God!!!
>

That would be your choice, Mozz.

>
> >> I cannot 'touch' a God or 'taste' a God.
> >
> >Do you lack the senses of touch and taste?
>

> breakfast. Still can't touch or taste God.
>

That would be your choice, Mozz.

>
> >I am not here to convince you but only to inform you.
>
> You cannot 'inform' with authority unless you provide
> convincing evidence.
>

You may rest assured that I inform with authority. Would
suggest you open your eyes and look around.

All praises belong to God, now and forever, in
Christ's name.

Amen.

> >> you can only admit to 'belief' in something completely
> >> intangible.
> >
> >I know what I know.
>
> I do not dispute that you know what you know - however,
> what you know is not the same as what is objective truth.

What I know is what my Lord teaches me from John 14:

6Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life.
No one comes to the Father except through me..."

> This you cannot dispute.
>

I would not think of disputing what my Lord teaches me.

>
> >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.
>
> Is it you view that God is 'spacially' further away than
> Pluto then?
>

I sense that God is expansively larger than the universe.

>
> >> 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?
>
> The Universe was not 'built'. Speak to your physicist
> father for a sensible explanation.

My physicist father does not have an explanation for how
everything came to being.

> >> 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.
>
> I have read the stories in the Bible, and like watching
> Star Wars, I read about a God (The Force) and lots of
> battles between goodies and baddies etc - but it was all
> just myth - entertaining none the less.
>

As the Apostle Paul wrote in 1 Timothy 1:

3As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there
in Ephesus so that you may

command certain men not to teach false doctrines any
longer 4nor to devote themselves to myths and endless
genealogies. These promote controversies rather than
God's work--which is by faith.

May God add His blessings to the writing of His Word here
within SMC, in Christ's name.

Amen

>
> >What happened to your believing in only that which is
> >tangible?
>
> His Holiness 'is' tangible! You could go and shake
> his hand!
>

I sensed that I would eventually get you to confess that you
worshipped the Dalai Lama.

When the Dalai Lama dies, know that Lord Jesus Christ lives.

> >> 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 been better informed by my theological studies and
> practice previous to our discussions.

You are entitled to your opinion. I sense otherwise,
however.

> I appreciate your sentiment though.
>

Your praises belong to God, always.

>
> >> 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?
>
> Bob and I have conversed.
>

Bob's recent contributions to this thread remain
unanswered by you.

> >Wouldn't you like for him to become enlightened?
>
> I would like all beings to reach their ultimate potential.
>

Then shouldn't you advise Bob about how he should proceed?
He seems very interested in our discussion. Despite my
informing him otherwise, he also seems to agree with your
belief that there is no God.

> In buddhism we do not proselytize.

That has not been my experience.

> If people hear the dharma, witness buddhists and are
> inspired by their living, and that is enough to motivate
> them to seek teachings then we are always happy to help.

Then why aren't you helping Bob?

> If people aren't interested yet, then that's ok. You can't
> force people to practice spirital paths!!!
>

Agree.

>
> >(Witness the gift of truth discernment at work :)
>
> Errrr.............where was that then? :)
>

You just passed it :)

>
> >> That is your choice to make, however, it does not seem
> >> in harmony with Christian wisdom.
> >
> >I remain obedient to my Lord.
>
> Obedient to your own idea about what you think the Lord
> means to you is all you can say in truth.
>

Obedient to the source of my life and many blessed gifts.

> >Was he not interested in reading the discussion
> >firsthand?
>
> He is a busy man with many responsibilities.

Sounds like your teacher is too busy to care about your
difficulties.

> I have more important things to discuss with him at our
> valuable meetings.
>

Sounds like a poor excuse.

> >> >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.
>
> Respectfully, you are deluding yourself that your
> 'observations' are content free when infact they are
> brimming with value judgements.

You are free to interpret my observations however you
choose.

>
> This does not bode well for your soul.
>

My soul remains immortal.

> >I discern it.
>
> >> >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.
>
> Especially when no Gospel author can agree on 'crucial'
> facts like Jesus' last words on the cross!!!

Being that Jesus is a risen God, there are no last words.

> Or who was actually present at the crucifixion etc!!!
> Things that would be 'crucial' to them if true!

Not to a risen God.

>
> Stretching the bounds of credibility to breaking point!!!
>

Not for those either with faith or with the gift of truth
discernment :)

>
> >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?
>
> Isn't human self deception amazing.
>

That is how I see your dharma, dear Mozz whom I love.

>
> >You have been informed that the Holy Bible is true.
>
> I have also been informed by others that it is a fiction.
>

These others would not have the gift of truth discernment.

>
> >Yes, God has also given me the gift of intelligence
> >through the Holy Spirit.
>
> Intelligence is not wisdom.
>

Correct.

>
> Your God has given you intelligence,

along with the gift of truth discernment.

> my Dharma has cultivated Wisdom.
>

If the latter were true, where is the wisdom in what
you write?

>
> Respectfully,
>

Respectfully, you remain in my prayers to God, neighbor whom
I love, 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
 
Hi Mozz whom I love,

I see you have dispensed with you usual kind greetings.

Praise God that He allows us to continue this discussion.

Mozz wrote:

> >> Are you saying you believe there might well have been
> >> a 'world wide' flood that covered 'all' the earth -
> >> as reported in the Talmud - despite the science? Yes
> >> or no?
> >>
> >
> >I sense that God is more than able to flood the entire
> >earth. Afterall, He made the universe out of nothing.
>
> So that's a 'yes'?

Yes.

> You do believe that there was a total world wide flood
> despite the evidence to the contrary?

There is no evidence to the contrary.

> And you don't accept that the Genesis 'stories' are simply
> 'stories'?
>

Correct.

>
> >> Or were the Biblical authors in error - distorting the
> >> 'facts'? Yes or no?
> >>
> >
> >Though the writers of the Bible were fallible. The Bible
> >is Holy and infallible.
>
> You will explain that paradox I'm sure...The WRITERS who
> WROTE the CONTENT of the Bible were FALLIBLE (ie: prone to
> error) yet the Bible is INFALLIBLE even though we come to
> KNOW the Bible through it's CONTENT???
>

God is the source of the Bible. Though God had many writers,
He remains the ultimate editor. May you someday realize
before you die that the Holy Bible is truly God's Word, in
Christ's name.

>
> >> If so, how far might they have distorted the facts in
> >> your 'discernment'?
> >>
> >
> >Only God knows. I do not have the gift of time travel to
> >go back with sounding gear to measure the water level
> >over the peak of Mount Everest when the waters crested.
>
> I thought you claimed the gift of truth discernment?

I have.

> Is it true that the facts were distorted or not?

I am unable to discern into the past. This is analogous to
my being unable to see Pluto even with my backyard
telescope.

> You are usually much less circumspect about your
> 'observations'.
>

That would depend on the "distance."

>
> >> So basically you are saying you are prepared to accept
> >> anything, however ridiculous and patently mythical as
> >> long as you believe it's the word of God?
> >>
> >
> >Yes. This is called faith.
>
> Yes, blind faith

I am not blind.

> - the death of the intellect and the abode of the cretin.

My intellect is intact and my soul immortal.

> Certainly no way to honour your Lord!!!

I remain obedient to Him.

> He, after all (as far as you are concerned) gave you the
> gift of 'intelligence'!!!
>

He has given me many gifts, which I steward to the best of
my ability.

All praises are His, now and forever.

Amen.

>
> >Fwiw, even before I accepted Christ as my Lord and
> >Savior, my sense of the Holy Bible with each reading only
> >reaffirmed that in truth God's Word was neither
> >ridiculous nor mythical.
>
> Why are you so afraid of this concept of myth?

I fear only my God whom I embrace and serve.

> Have you not heard of mythological truths?

Sounds like an oxymoron to me.

> If something is mythological, it does not mean it no
> longer has any meaning.
>

It does mean that something is untrue.

>
> >To compare, the city newpaper contained things that I
> >could discern (thanks to my gift of truth discernment
> >from the Holy Spirit) as ridiculous and patently
> >mythical.
>
> I think you are muddling up 'mythical' with 'false or
> invalid'.
>

You are entitled to your beliefs.

>
> Respectfully,
>

You remain in my prayers to God, 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
 
Hello Andrew, my Christian friend,

>I see you have dispensed with you usual kind greetings.

There was no offense intended :)

>Praise God that He allows us to continue this discussion.

I choose to continue this discussion from my own free will.

>> >I sense that God is more than able to flood the entire
>> >earth. Afterall, He made the universe out of nothing.
>>
>> So that's a 'yes'?
>
>Yes.
>
>> You do believe that there was a total world wide flood
>> despite the evidence to the contrary?
>
>There is no evidence to the contrary.

Take a deep breath and pay attention - "This is Rumour
Control! Here are the Facts!!!" ;-)

Geological Evidence Against the Occurence Worldwide Flood

This deluge had it really happened would have left behind
unmistakable evidence of its occurrence. While geological
records show that there had been epochs when some of the
earth's surface now covered by land was covered by water
and vice versa. This flooding and drying happened
repeatedly in many places at different times. However there
is no evidence whatsoever of a worldwide flood as recorded
in the book of Genesis.

In fact some of the evidence against the actual occurrence
of a worldwide flood was already known more than a hundred
years ago. The man who bought forward one such evidence was
the one considered to be the father of modern geology,
Charles Lyell (1797-1897). In his 1863 book, The Geological
Evidences for the Antiquity of Man, he noted that the
extinct volcanoes of France in the Auvergne district were
composed of loose ashes. The volcanoes had been extinct for
a long time, certainly longer than the purported time of the
biblical flood. Thus he continued: "Had the waters once
risen, even for a day, so high as to reach the level of the
base of one of these cones-had there been a single flood
fifty or sixty feet in height since the last eruption occurred-
a great part of the volcanoes must have inevitably been
swept away"

Today the geological (and historical) evidence for the non-
occurrence of a worldwide flood is simply overwhelming. Ian
Plimer, Professor of Geology at the University of Melbourne,
gave a thorough listing of these. We will give two examples
of the evidence cited by Professor Plimer:

The first concerns the sequence of the sedimentary deposits.
There are two kinds of sediments: high energy and low energy
sediment. Based on simple laboratory tests and field
observations of actual floods, it can be shown that high
energy sediments, such as gravel, are deposited during the
height of floods. Low energy sediments, such as siltstone,
mudstone and claystone, are deposited during the waning of
the floods. Thus if there is a worldwide flood we would
expect that there would be a uniform worldwide sedimentary
formation with the high energy sediments (ancient gravel,
sands) at the bottom and the low energy sediments at the
top. Yet this is not seen on anything close to a global
scale. As Professor Plimer pointed out, if this is to be
seen on a global scale, oilfield geologists would have an
easy job since all sedimentary formation would invariably
have sandstone at the bottom and siltstones, mudstones and
claystones at the top!

The second concerns the evidence of the environment of the
sediments during its time of deposition. Chemical and fossil
evidence shows that some sedimentary rocks were formed in
freshwater environments while others were formed in a saline
(salty-seawater) environment. Clearly the waters that was
sent by God during the deluge was either fresh or saline; it
couldn’t be both!

Witness the indisputable Buddhist gift of truth
discernment in action
:)

>> And you don't accept that the Genesis 'stories' are
>> simply 'stories'?
>>
>
>Correct.

Do you want some time to reflect after reading the above,
and maybe change your view?

>God is the source of the Bible. Though God had many
>writers, He remains the ultimate editor. May you someday
>realize before you die that the Holy Bible is truly God's
>Word, in Christ's name.

Which part of it do I take as authoritative though Andrew???
There are so many contradictions and errors of fact!!!

>> >> If so, how far might they have distorted the facts in
>> >> your 'discernment'?
>> >>
>> >
>> >Only God knows. I do not have the gift of time travel to
>> >go back with sounding gear to measure the water level
>> >over the peak of Mount Everest when the waters crested.
>>
>> I thought you claimed the gift of truth discernment?
>
>I have.

Then why not use it on the errancy of the Bible?

>> Is it true that the facts were distorted or not?
>
>I am unable to discern into the past. This is analogous to
>my being unable to see Pluto even with my backyard
>telescope.
>
>> You are usually much less circumspect about your
>> 'observations'.
>>
>
>That would depend on the "distance."

I thought God was immanent and eternal?

>> >> So basically you are saying you are prepared to accept
>> >> anything, however ridiculous and patently mythical as
>> >> long as you believe it's the word of God?
>> >>
>> >
>> >Yes. This is called faith.
>>
>> Yes, blind faith
>
>I am not blind.

You may see with your eyes, but not with wisdom!

>> Why are you so afraid of this concept of myth?
>
>I fear only my God whom I embrace and serve.
>
>> Have you not heard of mythological truths?
>
>Sounds like an oxymoron to me.

Mythological Truth is when stories or dreams or other media
are used to express a profound psychological truth through
symbolic representation. An example you would relate to
would be Jesus's use of parables. The Old Testament is
clearly a series of 'parables' if you like, not literal
'events'. Surely you must agree?

>> If something is mythological, it does not mean it no
>> longer has any meaning.

>It does mean that something is untrue.

No. It means the actual events may not have literally
happened, but it still conveys a psychological or
meaningful truth.

While we're discussing biblical accuracy and infallibilty,
please read carefully each of the following statements and
comment on them in honesty and some detail so I may
understand -

1 - Luke 14:26: "If any man come to me, and hate not his
father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren,
and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my
disciple."

Does this describe you Andrew?

2 - Have you ever been flogged in a synagogue or
dragged before governors and kings for Jesus' sake?
(Matthew 10:17-18).

Matthew 10:21-22: "And brother shall deliver up brother to
death, and the father the child; and the children shall rise
up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death,
and ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake..."

Have you had family problems like these? Does everybody hate
you because of Jesus?

3 - Also, are you morally perfect?

Matthew 5:48 - Jesus commands: "Be ye therefore perfect,
even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect."

This is an imperative - no if's, and's, or but's at
all, right?

4 - Are you a fool for Christ Andrew?

I Corinthians 3:18: "Let no man deceive himself. If any man
among you seemeth to be wise let him become a fool that he
may be wise."

5 - I've just read Exodus 21:7 where the Bible-god gives
instructions to fathers about selling their daughters into
slavery. (also see Deuteronomy 15:12). I have heard how big
the Bible is on the importance of the family. Is selling a
child into slavery what one expects of a good family Andrew?
Why did Jesus never once say anything critical about
slavery, or Paul either?

In I Corinthians 5:1-5 Paul tells believers to deliver a
certain not-so-evildoer to Satan for the destruction of his
flesh. Just how were they to do this? Did Satan maintain a
pick-up point somewhere in Corinth where Christians could
hand evil-doers over to Satanic transport and delivery, or
did the Old Nick himself pop in now and again to harvest
sinners personally? :) Would the bad guy have been alive at
this time or already dispatched by some approved method?
Imagine how this passage must have warmed the heart of the
Grand Inquisitor doing the holy work of burning heretics
alive. What are the flames of a half hour compared to those
of eternity?

Perhaps you want to meditate for a while to focus your mind
after these pointed questions?

Respectfully turning the wheel of dharma so the truth may
be revealed,
 
Hi Mozz whom I love,

Mozz wrote:

> Hello Andrew, my Christian friend,
>

Glad to see you rethought thinking me to be your foe.

>
> >I see you have dispensed with you usual kind greetings.
>
> There was no offense intended :)
>

Even if there were, I would forgive you as my Lord has
forgiven you...

as my Lord had forgiven Paul who persecuted Him.

>
> >Praise God that He allows us to continue this discussion.
>
> I choose to continue this discussion from my own
> free will.
>
> >> >I sense that God is more than able to flood the entire
> >> >earth. Afterall, He made the universe out of nothing.
> >>
> >> So that's a 'yes'?
> >
> >Yes.
> >
> >> You do believe that there was a total world wide flood
> >> despite the evidence to the contrary?
> >
> >There is no evidence to the contrary.
>
> Take a deep breath and pay attention - "This is Rumour
> Control! Here are the Facts!!!" ;-)
>
> Geological Evidence Against the Occurence Worldwide Flood
>
> This deluge had it really happened would have left behind
> unmistakable evidence of its occurrence. While geological
> records show that there had been epochs when some of the
> earth's surface now covered by land was covered by water
> and vice versa. This flooding and drying happened
> repeatedly in many places at different times. However
> there is no evidence whatsoever of a worldwide flood as
> recorded in the book of Genesis.
>
> In fact some of the evidence against the actual occurrence
> of a worldwide flood was already known more than a hundred
> years ago. The man who bought forward one such evidence
> was the one considered to be the father of modern geology,
> Charles Lyell (1797-1897). In his 1863 book, The
> Geological Evidences for the Antiquity of Man, he noted
> that the extinct volcanoes of France in the Auvergne
> district were composed of loose ashes. The volcanoes had
> been extinct for a long time, certainly longer than the
> purported time of the biblical flood.

According to what kind of dating?

> Thus he continued: "Had the waters once risen, even for
> a day, so high as to reach the level of the base of one
> of these cones-had there been a single flood fifty or
> sixty feet in height since the last eruption occurred- a
> great part of the volcanoes must have inevitably been
> swept away"

Unless the flood occurred *before* the last eruption of
these volcanoes.

>
> Today the geological (and historical) evidence for the non-
> occurrence of a worldwide flood is simply overwhelming.
> Ian Plimer, Professor of Geology at the University of
> Melbourne, gave a thorough listing of these. We will give
> two examples of the evidence cited by Professor Plimer:
>
> The first concerns the sequence of the sedimentary
> deposits. There are two kinds of sediments: high energy
> and low energy sediment. Based on simple laboratory tests
> and field observations of actual floods, it can be shown
> that high energy sediments, such as gravel, are deposited
> during the height of floods. Low energy sediments, such
> as siltstone, mudstone and claystone, are deposited
> during the waning of the floods. Thus if there is a
> worldwide flood we would expect that there would be a
> uniform worldwide sedimentary formation with the high
> energy sediments (ancient gravel, sands) at the bottom
> and the low energy sediments at the top. Yet this is not
> seen on anything close to a global scale. As Professor
> Plimer pointed out, if this is to be seen on a global
> scale, oilfield geologists would have an easy job since
> all sedimentary formation would invariably have sandstone
> at the bottom and siltstones, mudstones and claystones at
> the top!
>

This probably would have been the case if there were no
movement of tectonic plates with the associated earthquakes,
tidal waves and volcanic eruptions.

>
> The second concerns the evidence of the environment of the
> sediments during its time of deposition. Chemical and
> fossil evidence shows that some sedimentary rocks were
> formed in freshwater environments while others were formed
> in a saline (salty-seawater) environment. Clearly the
> waters that was sent by God during the deluge was either
> fresh or saline; it couldn’t be both!
>

The local water environment where the sediments formed
during *the* flood certainly could have been either or both.
It was not as if the earth was completely dry (oceanless)
before the deluge.

>
> Witness the indisputable Buddhist gift of truth
> discernment in action
> :)
>

I am observing Buddhist wishful thinking if anything :)

>
> >> And you don't accept that the Genesis 'stories' are
> >> simply 'stories'?
> >>
> >
> >Correct.
>
> Do you want some time to reflect after reading the above,
> and maybe change your view?
>

Don't need it.

Fwiw, I know God made buddha :) (and you do too)

>
> >God is the source of the Bible. Though God had many
> >writers, He remains the ultimate editor. May you someday
> >realize before you die that the Holy Bible is truly God's
> >Word, in Christ's name.
>
> Which part of it do I take as authoritative though
> Andrew???

The entire Holy Bible.

> There are so many contradictions and errors of fact!!!
>

Those serve to remind us of our imperfections. They also
serve to inform us that God accepts us as we are and indeed
loves us as we are.

>
> >> >> If so, how far might they have distorted the facts
> >> >> in your 'discernment'?
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Only God knows. I do not have the gift of time travel
> >> >to go back with sounding gear to measure the water
> >> >level over the peak of Mount Everest when the waters
> >> >crested.
> >>
> >> I thought you claimed the gift of truth discernment?
> >
> >I have.
>
> Then why not use it on the errancy of the Bible?
>

I have long ago many times as I have described earlier and
found the Holy Bible truthful :)

>
> >> Is it true that the facts were distorted or not?
> >
> >I am unable to discern into the past. This is analogous
> >to my being unable to see Pluto even with my backyard
> >telescope.
> >
> >> You are usually much less circumspect about your
> >> 'observations'.
> >>
> >
> >That would depend on the "distance."
>
> I thought God was immanent

God is true.

> and eternal?
>

God is infinite.

>
> >> >> So basically you are saying you are prepared to
> >> >> accept anything, however ridiculous and patently
> >> >> mythical as long as you believe it's the word of
> >> >> God?
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Yes. This is called faith.
> >>
> >> Yes, blind faith
> >
> >I am not blind.
>
> You may see with your eyes, but not with wisdom!
>

God is the source of all wisdom.

>
> >> Why are you so afraid of this concept of myth?
> >
> >I fear only my God whom I embrace and serve.
> >
> >> Have you not heard of mythological truths?
> >
> >Sounds like an oxymoron to me.
>
> Mythological Truth is when stories or dreams or other
> media are used to express a profound psychological truth
> through symbolic representation. An example you would
> relate to would be Jesus's use of parables.

Jesus is not mythological. Neither were His parables
mythological.

> The Old Testament is clearly a series of 'parables' if you
> like, not literal 'events'. Surely you must agree?
>

No. You forget my gift of truth discernment from God.

>
> >> If something is mythological, it does not mean it no
> >> longer has any meaning.
>
> >It does mean that something is untrue.
>
> No. It means the actual events may not have literally
> happened, but it still conveys a psychological or
> meaningful truth.

Not for those who have the gift of truth discernment.

>
> While we're discussing biblical accuracy and infallibilty,
> please read carefully each of the following statements and
> comment on them in honesty and some detail so I may
> understand -
>
> 1 - Luke 14:26: "If any man come to me, and hate not his
> father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren,
> and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my
> disciple."
>
> Does this describe you Andrew?
>

No. I am His grateful servant.

>
> 2 - Have you ever been flogged in a synagogue or
> dragged before governors and kings for Jesus' sake?
> (Matthew 10:17-18).
>

No. I remain His grateful servant.

>
> Matthew 10:21-22: "And brother shall deliver up brother to
> death, and the father the child; and the children shall
> rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to
> death, and ye shall be hated of all men for my name's
> sake..."
>
> Have you had family problems like these?

No. I remain His grateful servant.

>
> Does everybody hate you because of Jesus?
>

No. However, there are a few who do. They know who they are.

>
> 3 - Also, are you morally perfect?
>

No.

>
> Matthew 5:48 - Jesus commands: "Be ye therefore perfect,
> even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect."
>
> This is an imperative - no if's, and's, or but's at
> all, right?
>

Yes.

What Jesus teaches here is beautiful in Matthew 5:

43"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor
and hate your enemy.' 44But I tell you: Love your
enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45that
you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his
sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on
the righteous and the unrighteous. 46If you love those
who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even
the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only
your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do
not even pagans do that? 48Be perfect, therefore, as
your heavenly Father is perfect.

May God add His blessings to the writing of His Word here
within SMC, in Christ's name.

Amen

God is perfect.

We should strive to be perfect as Jesus teaches.

>
> 4 - Are you a fool for Christ Andrew?
>

I am madly in love with Him.

Some years ago, I literally gave my life to Him and He gave
it back to me saying He had more for me to do here in this
world. So here I am.

>
> I Corinthians 3:18: "Let no man deceive himself. If any
> man among you seemeth to be wise let him become a fool
> that he may be wise."
>

The above message seems to be directed at those who would
follow buddha's dharma ways.

God remains the source of all wisdom.

>
> 5 - I've just read Exodus 21:7 where the Bible-god gives
> instructions to fathers about selling their daughters into
> slavery.

Some fathers apparently did that in those days.

> (also see Deuteronomy 15:12). I have heard how big
> the Bible is on the importance of the family. Is
> selling a child into slavery what one expects of a
> good family Andrew?

If the alternative is for the child to starve to death, then
it may very well be the right thing to do.

(God's gift of truth discernment at work :)

> Why did Jesus never once say anything critical about
> slavery, or Paul either?

Paul saw himself as a bond-servant (ie slave) of Lord Jesus.

Christ teaches that who are least on earth (slaves) will be
great in Heaven.

(God's gift of truth discernment again at work :)

> In I Corinthians 5:1-5 Paul tells believers to deliver a
> certain not-so-evildoer to Satan for the destruction of
> his flesh. Just how were they to do this? Did Satan
> maintain a pick-up point somewhere in Corinth where
> Christians could hand evil-doers over to Satanic transport
> and delivery, or did the Old Nick himself pop in now and
> again to harvest sinners personally? :) Would the bad guy
> have been alive at this time or already dispatched by some
> approved method? Imagine how this passage must have warmed
> the heart of the Grand Inquisitor doing the holy work of
> burning heretics alive. What are the flames of a half hour
> compared to those of eternity?
>

Here's the passage from 1 Cor 5:

4When you are assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus and
I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus
is present, 5hand this man over to Satan, so that the
sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the
day of the Lord.

Now, what were your questions again?

> Perhaps you want to meditate for a while to focus your
> mind after these pointed questions?
>

Already answered them. Took me all of a few seconds thanks
to God's gift of truth discernment :)

>
> Respectfully turning the wheel of dharma so the truth may
> be revealed,
>

Would suggest you trade your wheel of dharma in for God's
gift of truth discernment
:)

May you accept Christ as your personal Lord and Savior,
someday, so that you too will have eternal life and the
boundless riches of God's kingdom, in Christ 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:

>>Geological Evidence Against the Occurence Worldwide Flood
>>
>>This deluge had it really happened would have left behind
>>unmistakable evidence of its occurrence. While geological
>>records show that there had been epochs when some of the
>>earth's surface now covered by land was covered by water
>>and vice versa. This flooding and drying happened
>>repeatedly in many places at different times. However
>>there is no evidence whatsoever of a worldwide flood as
>>recorded in the book of Genesis.
>>
>>In fact some of the evidence against the actual occurrence
>>of a worldwide flood was already known more than a hundred
>>years ago. The man who bought forward one such evidence
>>was the one considered to be the father of modern geology,
>>Charles Lyell (1797-1897). In his 1863 book, The
>>Geological Evidences for the Antiquity of Man, he noted
>>that the extinct volcanoes of France in the Auvergne
>>district were composed of loose ashes. The volcanoes had
>>been extinct for a long time, certainly longer than the
>>purported time of the biblical flood.
>=20
> According to what kind of dating?

The localized flood that was the source of the layer of
sediment in=20 the middle east about the time of Noah was
roughly 2450 B.C. by our=20 current calendar.

>>Thus he continued: "Had the waters once risen, even for
>>a day, so high as to reach the level of the base of one
>>of these cones-had there been a single flood fifty or
>>sixty feet in height since the last eruption occurred- a
>>great part of the volcanoes must have inevitably been
>>swept away"
>=20
> Unless the flood occurred *before* the last eruption of
> these volcanoes=
=2E

Not likely given the local geology.

>>Today the geological (and historical) evidence for the non-
>>occurrence of a worldwide flood is simply overwhelming.
>>Ian Plimer, Professor of Geology at the University of
>>Melbourne, gave a thorough listing of these. We will give
>>two examples of the evidence cited by Professor Plimer:
>>
>>The first concerns the sequence of the sedimentary
>>deposits. There are two kinds of sediments: high energy
>>and low energy sediment. Based on simple laboratory tests
>>and field observations of actual floods, it can be shown
>>that high energy sediments, such as gravel, are deposited
>>during the height of floods. Low energy sediments, such
>>as siltstone, mudstone and claystone, are deposited
>>during the waning of the floods. Thus if there is a
>>worldwide flood we would expect that there would be a
>>uniform worldwide sedimentary formation with the high
>>energy sediments (ancient gravel, sands) at the bottom
>>and the low energy sediments at the top. Yet this is not
>>seen on anything close to a global scale. As Professor
>>Plimer pointed out, if this is to be seen on a global
>>scale, oilfield geologists would have an easy job since
>>all sedimentary formation would invariably have sandstone
>>at the bottom and siltstones, mudstones and claystones at
>>the top!
>>
> This probably would have been the case if there were no
> movement of tec=
tonic plates
> with the associated earthquakes, tidal waves and volcanic
> eruptions.

Start with no evidence in the 4000 to 5000 years ago period
of=20 large-scale flooding outside a limited area in the
middle east where=20 the Sumerians and Babylonians lived
(both of whom had flood legends=20 much more detailed than
the biblical one, and earlier). Continue=20 through the fact
that tectonic plates haven't moved very much in 5000=20
years - inches. Factor in that tidal waves only happen at
coasts and=20 that volcanic eruptions occur in very specific
locations around the=20 world, usually at the edges of
plates. The data all falls together to=20 say there was no
global flood.

Forget that idea of no proof to the contrary, that's
demonstrably=20 incorrect, as I've posted recently with
solid sources. There's an=20 enormous body of proof.

How about some proof that it *did* happen.

>>The second concerns the evidence of the environment of the
>>sediments during its time of deposition. Chemical and
>>fossil evidence shows that some sedimentary rocks were
>>formed in freshwater environments while others were formed
>>in a saline (salty-seawater) environment. Clearly the
>>waters that was sent by God during the deluge was either
>>fresh or saline; it couldn=92t be both!
>>
> The local water environment where the sediments formed
> during *the* flo=
od certainly
> could have been either or both. It was not as if the earth
> was complet=
ely dry
> (oceanless) before the deluge.

If the earth were completely covered for a year, waters
would have=20 arrived at a stable, general salinity by
convection. The bible talks=20 about rain for 40 days. Rain
is fresh water.

Freshwater streams would become as salty as the average.
Oceans would=20 become as salty as the average. Given that
the unconnected and=20 discrete sediments are not to some
average, it means that the water=20 from which the sediments
were deposited weren't at a stable salt=20 level. So no
global water covering.

The other fact is that sediments are not continuous. That
is, there=20 isn't a constant placement of sediment
worldwide. There are pockets of=20 sedimentation, but only
pockets. There is no reasonable geological=20 explanation
*for* a flood and a great deal of proof *against* the flood.

The fact of continuing societies that began before the
dating of the=20 flood and continued through it also means
it wasn't global. China. Egypt.=

Bob
 
Hi Mozz,

I'm having trouble understanding your use of a certain
word in your postings - emptiness. You seem to be using it
as something to strive for in Buddhism. I keep wondering
if whoever translated the concept into English chose the
right word.

If we take a look at google.com's dictionary we find:

4 entries found for emptiness. emp·ty adj. emp·ti·er,
emp·ti·est

Holding or containing nothing. Mathematics. Having no
elements or members; null: an empty set. Having no occupants
or inhabitants; vacant: an empty chair; empty desert.
Lacking force or power: an empty threat. Lacking purpose or
substance; meaningless: an empty life. Not put to use; idle:
empty hours. Needing nourishment; hungry: “More fierce and
more inexorable far/Than empty tigers or the roaring sea”
(Shakespeare). Devoid; destitute: empty of pity.

v. emp·tied, emp·ty·ing, emp·ties
w. tr. To remove the contents of: emptied the dishwasher. To
transfer or pour off completely: empty the ashes into a
pail. To unburden; relieve: empty oneself of doubt.

x. intr. To become empty: The theater emptied after the
performance. To discharge its contents: The river empties
into a bay.

y. Informal pl. emp·ties An empty container.

------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------
[Middle English, from Old English mtig, vacant, unoccupied,
from metta, leisure. See med- in Indo-European Roots.]
------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------
empti·ly adv. empti·ness n. Synonyms: empty, vacant, blank,
void, vacuous, bare, 1barren These adjectives mean without
contents that could or should be present. Empty applies to
what is wholly lacking contents or substance: an empty room;
empty promises. Vacant refers to what is without an occupant
or incumbent, or to what is without intelligence or thought:
a vacant auditorium; a vacant stare. Blank stresses the
absence of something, especially on a surface, that would
convey meaning or content: blank pages. Void applies to what
is free from or completely destitute of discernible content:
gibberish void of all meaning. Vacuous describes what is as
devoid of substance as a vacuum
ya: led a vacuous life. Something that is bare lacks
surface covering (a bare head) or detail (the bare
facts); the word also denotes the condition of being
stripped of contents or furnishings: a bare closet.
Barren literally and figuratively stresses lack of
productivity: barren land; writing barren of insight.
See also synonyms at vain Word History: In Old English
Ic eom mtig could mean “I am empty,” “I am unoccupied,”
or “I am unmarried.” The sense “unoccupied, at
leisure,” which did not survive Old English, points to
the derivation of mtig from the Old English word metta,
“leisure, rest.” The word metta may in turn go back to
the Germanic root *mt-, meaning “ability, leisure.” In
any case, Old English mtig also meant “vacant,” a sense
that was destined to take over the meaning of the word.
Empty, the Modern English descendant of Old English
mtig, has come to have the sense “idle,” so that one
can speak of empty leisure.

[Download or Buy Now] Source: The American Heritage®
Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright
© 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton
Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

emptiness

\Emp"ti*ness\, n. [From Empty.] 1. The state of being empty;
absence of contents; void space; vacuum; as, the emptiness
of a vessel; emptiness of the stomach.

2. Want of solidity or substance; unsatisfactoriness;
inability to satisfy desire; vacuity; hollowness; the
emptiness of earthly glory.

3. Want of knowledge; lack of sense; vacuity of mind.

Eternal smiles his emptiness betray. --Pope.

The sins of emptiness, gossip, and spite. --Tennyson.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996,
1998 MICRA, Inc.

emptiness

n 1: the state of containing nothing [ant: fullness] 2:
having an empty stomach 3: an empty area or space; "the huge
desert voids"; "the emptiness of outer space" [syn: void,
vacancy] 4: the quality of being valueless or futile; "he
rejected the vanities of the world" [syn: vanity]

Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University
------------------------

None of this sounds like something to strive for but rather,
something to be avoided. If you see something or someone
empty, try to fill
it/them. So how did Buddhism come to adopt this particular
word. Frankly, if means to Buddhism what it normally
means in English, then why would anyone want it?

Contrast to Christianity: John 10:10 "I am come that they
might have life, and that they might have it more
abundantly."

John

On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 23:22:59 +0000, Mozz
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>Hi John,
>
>Thanks for your post.
>
>I agree entirely with your sentiment. I too respect the
>mythic role stories play in religious texts. Although I
>personally do not believe in God, I still respect the worth
>of the moral tales etc...
>
>My reason for pointing these 'scientific' and rational
>analyses was because Andrew claims the gift of truth
>discernment, and has insisted that these events actually
>'did' occur - despite modern thinking to the contrary, and
>that you or I are categorically 'wrong' to think otherwise.
>
>You sound like a reasonable person John, can you understand
>my concern at Andrew's approach here?
>
>Respectfully,
>

>
>>Dear Mozz,
>>
>>The Christian religion does not stand or fall on the
>>historical accuracy of the stories in Genesis. The book of
>>Genesis is not a science textbook. It is a collection of
>>stories about the relationship between God and man.
>>Whether creation took seven 24 hour days to accomplish or
>>took billions of years to accomplish does not change the
>>fact that it was accomplished. God's time is not the same
>>as human time.
>>
>>The presence of these stories in the Bible does serve and
>>fulfill God's purpose as a history of man's attempt to
>>understand and relate to God. Getting all wrapped up about
>>scientific details here is silly. The stories are not
>>about science.
>>
>>John
 
Hello John,

Nice to chat with you again.

>Hi Mozz,
>
>I'm having trouble understanding your use of a certain
>word in your postings - emptiness. You seem to be using it
>as something to strive for in Buddhism. I keep wondering
>if whoever translated the concept into English chose the
>right word.

Words, ideas and concepts tie us up in knots. When we see
ourselves and all things just as they are, without labels or
the preconceptions that ride with labels, we are liberated.
Yet in the world where we live, concepts and ideas have
value. The trick is to see the practical value of ideas
while realizing that they are ultimately inadequate for true
understanding.

>None of this sounds like something to strive for but
>rather, something to be avoided. If you see something or
>someone empty, try to fill
>it/them.

We can practice in a way that is very simple and direct, yet
fully realize ultimate liberation. The way to do this is
just to let go.

>So how did Buddhism come to adopt this particular word.
>Frankly, if means to Buddhism what it normally means in
>English, then why would anyone want it?

Emptiness

The Heart Sutra expresses the Buddha's most profound
teaching, the not two-ness of all things. Because we
habitually cut our selves off from the rest of existence, we
resist any idea that we lack a separate self. In the Heart
Sutra the Buddha tells us that all is shunyata, generally
translated as emptiness. This emptiness is in fact fullness
with all things.

Thich Nhat Hanh explains emptiness through a piece of paper.
Where is the paper if we take away the rain, the earth, the
sun, the logger who cut down the tree? Without these and
many, many other conditions, the paper would not exist. It
is empty of a separate self but full of all of the other
things that make it up.

How does this knowledge give us comfort? While the emptiness
of a piece of paper is interesting, its not particularly
helpful in our daily lives. The answer is that emptiness
applies to more than the material world of form.

Our mental processes are just as empty as the piece of
paper. Thoughts, feelings, likes, dislikes and all other
mental phenomena are likewise the result of many
external conditions which are quite beyond our control
or even our knowledge. The knowledge of emptiness
liberates us from guilt and sorrow. We must understand ,
however, that emptiness does not absolve us from
responsibility for our actions.

The knowledge of emptiness allows us to practice mindfulness
and see how mental phenomena arise and pass away. When we
see this process we become free and we see how others are
overwhelmed by life because of ignorance. Our responsibility
is to practice loving kindness and help others see the path
to liberation .

Respecfully and with a heart-felt wish that you realize
emptiness and eliminate all suffering,
 
Hello Andrew, my Christian friend,

>What I "discern" from past discussions with "Mozz" is that
>indeed there has been no error in translation.
>Specifically, I would refer you to our discussions about
>the analogy of 0 and 1, of false and true.

Yes, please read my successful refutations of Andrew's
incorrect analogy or grasp of the meaning of emptiness
according to buddhist understanding.

Respectfully,
 
Hi Andrew,

>I could write that you are deluded but not only would I be
>restating the obvious but I would also be restating what
>you have admitted :)

We are all suffering from delusion in samsara my friend.

>This does not bode well for your dharma.

The fact I have realized this truth and I am on the Path to
cessation bodes well for me, but your 'attachment' to your
Christian fictions certainly does not bode well for you my
friend. I wish I could help you more but you seem to have
decided not to listen.

With love and good intention,
 
John wrote:

> On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 14:47:53 +0000, Mozz
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>[...] Unlikely if you take the science seriously.
>>
>>[...] Forget that idea of no proof to the contrary, that's
>>demonstrably incorrect, as I've posted recently with solid
>>sources. There's an enormous body of proof." [...] (LOL)
>>You claim to believe in the literal Flood and Adam and Eve
>>etc and you accuse 'me' of 'wishful thinking'!!! You seem
>>to have metamorphosed into an ostrich... [...] Here's
>>another slice of 'truth' for you to contemplate -
>
> Ahh, Mozz, isn't it true that Buddhists believe that the
> universe was not created but has always existed and
> always will?
>
> How do you square this up with modern "big bang" theory of
> cosmology?

No problem, "John." The big bang theory doesn't say anything
about what came before it. In fact, one of the conjectures
is that if the universe oscillates between expansion and
contraction, it may well be that the big bang happened at
the instant of complete contraction to begin expansion anew.
A vast, eternal, cosmic accordion...

> There was just some news today about studies from the
> Hubble telescope regarding galaxies that are much further
> away and receeding faster than any previously known. The
> news story is sprinkling with "big bang" so it must still
> be in some favor.

"...still be in some favor." <LOL> Right. It does have some
small currency. Like with virtually every astronomer,
physicist, cosmologist, astrophysicist, and anybody else who
likes evidence instead of bright red stories written 5000
years ago.

Did I ever tell you the one about the turtle that carries
the whole world on his back...?

> It has always seemed to me that the big bang theory of
> cosmology lines up pretty well with what a creation by God
> would look like.

In the new Spencer novel, "Back Story" one of the characters
makes a cool observation. She says, "I notice as I grow
older that if you have deeply held political convictions,
you can make pretty much everything fit them, if you need
to." Obviously doesn't just apply to politics, huh, "John."

Big Bang happened in an instant. Genesis took 6 "days." The
sequences of events are rather different, to say the least.

>>>4When you are assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus and
>>>I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus
>>>is present, 5hand this man over to Satan, so that the
>>>sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on
>>>the day of the Lord.
>>>
>>>Now, what were your questions again?
>>
>>How would one 'hand a man over to Satan'?
>
> By disfellowshipping the man, i.e., barring him from
> membership and attendance.

"Disfellowshipping..." <LOL> A wonderful backformation. Best
jargon of the day. So telling someone they can't play in
your sandbox is handing him over to Satan? Right. Like there
are no other options for such a person. And there's no
chance that an error is being made? Rather a weak action for
what has such an ominous sound.

But this is interesting and something of a contrast with
Chung's fairly constant harping on Mozz about needing other
people to find enlightenment. Looks like you're
contradicting your hero. You say that telling someone that
they can't be with you means that they're now Satan's
property. Means that the unfortunate that you
"disfellowship" (hee hee) must need others to help him or
he's lost.

"disfellowship" <LOL> Anybody can use English words. Takes a
wizard to make up new ones... <LOL>

Bob
 
John wrote:

> Hi Mozz,
>
> I'm having trouble understanding your use of a certain
> word in your postings - emptiness. You seem to be using it
> as something to strive for in Buddhism. I keep wondering
> if whoever translated the concept into English chose the
> right word.
>
> If we take a look at google.com's dictionary we find:
>
> 4 entries found for emptiness. emp·ty adj. emp·ti·er,
> emp·ti·est
>
> Holding or containing nothing. Mathematics. Having no
> elements or members; null: an empty set. Having no
> occupants or inhabitants; vacant: an empty chair; empty
> desert. Lacking force or power: an empty threat. Lacking
> purpose or substance; meaningless: an empty life. Not put
> to use; idle: empty hours. Needing nourishment; hungry:
> “More fierce and more inexorable far/Than empty tigers or
> the roaring sea” (Shakespeare). Devoid; destitute: empty
> of pity.
>
> v. emp·tied, emp·ty·ing, emp·ties
> v. tr. To remove the contents of: emptied the dishwasher.
> To transfer or pour off completely: empty the ashes
> into a pail. To unburden; relieve: empty oneself of
> doubt.
>
> v. intr. To become empty: The theater emptied after the
> performance. To discharge its contents: The river
> empties into a bay.
>
> n. Informal pl. emp·ties An empty container.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------
> [Middle English, from Old English mtig, vacant,
> unoccupied, from metta, leisure. See med- in Indo-
> European Roots.]
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------
> empti·ly adv. empti·ness n. Synonyms: empty, vacant,
> blank, void, vacuous, bare, 1barren These adjectives mean
> without contents that could or should be present. Empty
> applies to what is wholly lacking contents or substance:
> an empty room; empty promises. Vacant refers to what is
> without an occupant or incumbent, or to what is without
> intelligence or thought: a vacant auditorium; a vacant
> stare. Blank stresses the absence of something, especially
> on a surface, that would convey meaning or content: blank
> pages. Void applies to what is free from or completely
> destitute of discernible content: gibberish void of all
> meaning. Vacuous describes what is as devoid of substance
> as a vacuum
> is: led a vacuous life. Something that is bare lacks
> surface covering (a bare head) or detail (the bare
> facts); the word also denotes the condition of being
> stripped of contents or furnishings: a bare closet.
> Barren literally and figuratively stresses lack of
> productivity: barren land; writing barren of insight.
> See also synonyms at vain Word History: In Old English
> Ic eom mtig could mean “I am empty,” “I am
> unoccupied,” or “I am unmarried.” The sense
> “unoccupied, at leisure,” which did not survive Old
> English, points to the derivation of mtig from the Old
> English word metta, “leisure, rest.” The word metta
> may in turn go back to the Germanic root *mt-, meaning
> “ability, leisure.” In any case, Old English mtig also
> meant “vacant,” a sense that was destined to take over
> the meaning of the word. Empty, the Modern English
> descendant of Old English mtig, has come to have the
> sense “idle,” so that one can speak of empty leisure.
>
> [Download or Buy Now] Source: The American Heritage®
> Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
> Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by
> Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
>
> emptiness
>
> \Emp"ti*ness\, n. [From Empty.] 1. The state of being
> empty; absence of contents; void space; vacuum; as, the
> emptiness of a vessel; emptiness of the stomach.
>
> 2. Want of solidity or substance; unsatisfactoriness;
> inability to satisfy desire; vacuity; hollowness; the
> emptiness of earthly glory.
>
> 3. Want of knowledge; lack of sense; vacuity of mind.
>
> Eternal smiles his emptiness betray. --Pope.
>
> The sins of emptiness, gossip, and spite. --Tennyson.
>
> Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996,
> 1998 MICRA, Inc.
>
> emptiness
>
> n 1: the state of containing nothing [ant: fullness] 2:
> having an empty stomach 3: an empty area or space; "the
> huge desert voids"; "the emptiness of outer space"
> [syn: void, vacancy] 4: the quality of being valueless
> or futile; "he rejected the vanities of the world"
> [syn: vanity]
>
> Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University
> ------------------------
>
> None of this sounds like something to strive for but
> rather, something to be avoided. If you see something or
> someone empty, try to fill
> it/them. So how did Buddhism come to adopt this particular
> word. Frankly, if means to Buddhism what it normally
> means in English, then why would anyone want it?
>
> Contrast to Christianity: John 10:10 "I am come that they
> might have life, and that they might have it more
> abundantly."
>
> John
>

Hi John whom I love,

What I "discern" from past discussions with "Mozz" is that
indeed there has been no error in translation. Specifically,
I would refer you to our discussions about the analogy of 0
and 1, of false and true.

Your brother and...

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/?J2DB148A7

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

Are you sure that you meant to address this to me?

Mozz wrote:

> Hello Andrew, my Christian friend,
>
> >What I "discern" from past discussions with "Mozz" is
> >that indeed there has been no error in translation.
> >Specifically, I would refer you to our discussions about
> >the analogy of 0 and 1, of false and true.
>
> Yes, please read my successful refutations of Andrew's
> incorrect analogy or grasp of the meaning of emptiness
> according to buddhist understanding.
>
> Respectfully,
>

I could write that you are deluded but not only would I be
restating the obvious but I would also be restating what you
have admitted :)

This does not bode well for your dharma.

You remain in my prayers, neighbor whom I love, 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/?J2DB148A7

Is this spam?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?N69721867
 
On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 14:13:22 +0000, Mozz <[email protected]> wrote:

>Hello John,
>
>Nice to chat with you again.
>
>>Hi Mozz,
>>
>>I'm having trouble understanding your use of a certain
>>word in your postings - emptiness. You seem to be using it
>>as something to strive for in Buddhism. I keep wondering
>>if whoever translated the concept into English chose the
>>right word.
>
>Words, ideas and concepts tie us up in knots.

Perhaps, but it's all we've got.

>When we see ourselves and all things just as they are,
>without labels or the preconceptions that ride with labels,
>we are liberated. Yet in the world where we live, concepts
>and ideas have value. The trick is to see the practical
>value of ideas while realizing that they are ultimately
>inadequate for true understanding.
>
>>None of this sounds like something to strive for but
>>rather, something to be avoided. If you see something or
>>someone empty, try to fill
>>it/them.
>
>We can practice in a way that is very simple and direct,
>yet fully realize ultimate liberation. The way to do this
>is just to let go.

Let go of what?

>>So how did Buddhism come to adopt this particular word.
>>Frankly, if means to Buddhism what it normally means in
>>English, then why would anyone want it?
>
>Emptiness

>The Heart Sutra expresses the Buddha's most profound
>teaching, the not two-ness of all things. Because we
>habitually cut our selves off from the rest of existence,

Yes, it is just so easy to see where I end and everything
else begins.

>we resist any idea that we lack a separate self. In the
>Heart Sutra the Buddha tells us that all is shunyata,
>generally translated as emptiness. This emptiness is in
>fact fullness with all things.

This was devised in the absense of the theory of matter. I
wonder what he'd say now?

As to the choice of translation - so far as I have read what
you've said, they might as well have used the (non)word
"squarlmus" as "emptiness" or just left it as shunyata.

>Thich Nhat Hanh explains emptiness through a piece of
>paper. Where is the paper if we take away the rain, the
>earth, the sun, the logger who cut down the tree? Without
>these and many, many other conditions, the paper would
>not exist.

>It is empty of a separate self but full of all of the other
>things that make it up.

...and a whole lot more.

Is this another way of saying "you are what you eat?" It
seems to me that a sentient animal being such as mankind is
a lot more than the sum of its parts.

>How does this knowledge give us comfort? While the
>emptiness of a piece of paper is interesting, its not
>particularly helpful in our daily lives. The answer is that
>emptiness applies to more than the material world of form.
>
>Our mental processes are just as empty as the piece of
>paper. Thoughts, feelings, likes, dislikes and all other
>mental phenomena are likewise the result of many external
>conditions which are quite beyond our control or even our
>knowledge.

To me, an idea is an amazing thing. For one thing, it
doesn't have to obey the laws of physics. An idea doesn't
weigh anything or take space (i.e., not matter) therefor not
subject in any way to Newton's laws. An idea can be kept
secret by its original thinker but once told to another, the
original thinker totally loses control.

Because of these amazing qualities of ideas, it is no
wonder that God uses ideas as His principle means of
communicating with us.

>The knowledge of emptiness liberates us from guilt and
>sorrow. We must understand , however, that emptiness does
>not absolve us from responsibility for our actions.

I can neither agree nor disagree. Rewrite the above using
"squarlmus" in place of emptiness to see why. I would agree
that nothing absolves us from responsibility for our actions
- except the Grace of God - obtainable by calling on the
name of Jesus.

>The knowledge of emptiness allows us to practice
>mindfulness and see how mental phenomena arise and pass
>away. When we see this process we become free and we see
>how others are overwhelmed by life because of ignorance.
>Our responsibility is to practice loving kindness and help
>others see the path to liberation .

I believe that our responsibility is to practice loving
kindness and help others to see the path to salvation.

>Respecfully and with a heart-felt wish that you realize
>emptiness and eliminate all suffering,
>

Thanks and no thanks. I am not suffering in any way that I
can detect, but I don't think I want any emptiness. But I'd
like another helping of God's Grace, please. ;^)

Respectfully and with a heart-felt wish that you realize the
love God has for you and that you accept His offer of
salvation.

John
 
Hi Mozz whom I love,

Mozz wrote:

> Hello Andrew,
>
> >Glad to see you rethought thinking me to be your foe.
>
> I have never considered you my foe Andrew.

Your language betrayed you, Mozz.

> You are far too paranoid my friend.

You seem to be projecting your fears. This is
understandable, I fear God too.

> It will only cause you more suffering.
>

I do not fear suffering, Mozz.

>
> >> Geological Evidence Against the Occurence Worldwide
> >> Flood
> >>
> >> This deluge had it really happened would have left
> >> behind unmistakable evidence of its occurrence. While
> >> geological records show that there had been epochs when
> >> some of the earth's surface now covered by land was
> >> covered by water and vice versa. This flooding and
> >> drying happened repeatedly in many places at different
> >> times. However there is no evidence whatsoever of a
> >> worldwide flood as recorded in the book of Genesis.
> >>
> >> In fact some of the evidence against the actual
> >> occurrence of a worldwide flood was already known more
> >> than a hundred years ago. The man who bought forward
> >> one such evidence was the one considered to be the
> >> father of modern geology, Charles Lyell (1797-1897). In
> >> his 1863 book, The Geological Evidences for the
> >> Antiquity of Man, he noted that the extinct volcanoes
> >> of France in the Auvergne district were composed of
> >> loose ashes. The volcanoes had been extinct for a long
> >> time, certainly longer than the purported time of the
> >> biblical flood.
> >
> >According to what kind of dating?
>
> "The localized flood that was the source of the layer of
> sediment in the middle east about the time of Noah was
> roughly 2450 B.C. by our current calendar."
>

Last I checked the year 2450 B.C. was not given in the Holy
Bible as the year of the Flood.

>
> >> Thus he continued: "Had the waters once risen, even for
> >> a day, so high as to reach the level of the base of one
> >> of these cones-had there been a single flood fifty or
> >> sixty feet in height since the last eruption occurred-
> >> a great part of the volcanoes must have inevitably been
> >> swept away"
> >
> >Unless the flood occurred *before* the last eruption of
> >these volcanoes.
>
> Unlikely if you take the science seriously.
>

Suffice it to say that I know the science.

> >>
> >> Today the geological (and historical) evidence for the
> >> non-occurrence of a worldwide flood is simply
> >> overwhelming. Ian Plimer, Professor of Geology at the
> >> University of Melbourne, gave a thorough listing of
> >> these. We will give two examples of the evidence cited
> >> by Professor Plimer:
> >>
> >> The first concerns the sequence of the sedimentary
> >> deposits. There are two kinds of sediments: high energy
> >> and low energy sediment. Based on simple laboratory
> >> tests and field observations of actual floods, it can
> >> be shown that high energy sediments, such as gravel,
> >> are deposited during the height of floods. Low energy
> >> sediments, such as siltstone, mudstone and claystone,
> >> are deposited during the waning of the floods. Thus if
> >> there is a worldwide flood we would expect that there
> >> would be a uniform worldwide sedimentary formation with
> >> the high energy sediments (ancient gravel, sands) at
> >> the bottom and the low energy sediments at the top. Yet
> >> this is not seen on anything close to a global scale.
> >> As Professor Plimer pointed out, if this is to be seen
> >> on a global scale, oilfield geologists would have an
> >> easy job since all sedimentary formation would
> >> invariably have sandstone at the bottom and siltstones,
> >> mudstones and claystones at the top!
> >>
> >
> >This probably would have been the case if there were no
> >movement of tectonic plates with the associated
> >earthquakes, tidal waves and volcanic eruptions.
>
> "Start with no evidence in the 4000 to 5000 years ago
> period of large-scale flooding outside a limited area in
> the middle east where the Sumerians and Babylonians lived
> (both of whom had flood legends much more detailed than
> the biblical one, and earlier).

Ok, so the Flood may predate 4000 to 5000 years ago.

> Continue through the fact that tectonic plates haven't
> moved very much in 5000 years - inches.

Ok, so the Flood may have happened much longer than 5000
years ago.

> Factor in that tidal waves only happen at coasts and that
> volcanic eruptions occur in very specific locations around
> the world, usually at the edges of plates. The data all
> falls together to say there was no global flood...
>

... in the past 5000 years.

>
> Forget that idea of no proof to the contrary, that's
> demonstrably incorrect, as I've posted recently with solid
> sources. There's an enormous body of proof."
>

There remains no proof that the Flood *never* happened.

>
> >> The second concerns the evidence of the environment of
> >> the sediments during its time of deposition. Chemical
> >> and fossil evidence shows that some sedimentary rocks
> >> were formed in freshwater environments while others
> >> were formed in a saline (salty-seawater) environment.
> >> Clearly the waters that was sent by God during the
> >> deluge was either fresh or saline; it couldn’t be both!
> >>
> >
> >The local water environment where the sediments formed
> >during *the* flood certainly could have been either or
> >both. It was not as if the earth was completely dry
> >(oceanless) before the deluge.
>
> "If the earth were completely covered for a year, waters
> would have arrived at a stable, general salinity by
> convection.

Perhaps in a year.

> The bible talks about rain for 40 days.

Which is not a year.

> Rain is fresh water.
>

Yes it is.

>
> Freshwater streams would become as salty as the average.

There would be no streams during the Flood.

> Oceans would become as salty as the average.

There would be no oceans either.

> Given that the unconnected and discrete sediments are not
> to some average, it means that the water from which the
> sediments were deposited weren't at a stable salt level.

Probably because they did not have enough time to
equilibrate. According to the Holy Bible, the waters receded
nearly as quickly as they came.

> So no global water covering...
>

...for a year.

>
> The other fact is that sediments are not continuous.

Sedimentation should not be continuous for uneven terrain.
Sediments are denser than water so they will settle from
high points to low points. Mountains are simply not going to
have much if any sedimentation. After all, rainwater is
clean (no sediments).

> That is, there isn't a constant placement of sediment
> worldwide. There are pockets of sedimentation, but only
> pockets.

For uneven terrain, those pockets will be the regional low
points of the terrain.

> There is no reasonable geological explanation *for* a
> flood

Actually there is: God.

> and a great deal of proof *against* the flood.
>

I do not discern one proof here much less a great deal of
proof.

>
> The fact of continuing societies that began before the
> dating of the flood and continued through it also means it
> wasn't global. China. Egypt."
>

The fact is it is written in the Holy Bible that the Flood
happened *before* the development of different societies
(with different languages).

God informs from Genesis 10:

1 This is the account of Shem, Ham and Japheth, Noah's
sons, who themselves had sons after the flood. The
Japhethites 2 The sons of Japheth: Gomer, Magog, Madai,
Javan, Tubal, Meshech and Tiras. 3 The sons of Gomer:
Ashkenaz, Riphath and Togarmah. 4 The sons of Javan:
Elishah, Tarshish, the Kittim and the Rodanim. 5 (From
these the maritime peoples spread out into their
territories by their clans within their nations, each
with its own language.)

> Indisputable rational empirical thinking from Bob that you
> cannot refute Andrew.
>

Seems I have been able to refute neighbor Bob's
protestations with God's help :)

For more examples of Bob's irrational thinking:

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

>
> >> Witness the indisputable Buddhist gift of truth
> >> discernment in action
> >> :)
> >>
> >
> >I am observing Buddhist wishful thinking if anything :)
>
> (LOL) You claim to believe in the literal Flood and Adam
> and Eve etc and you accuse 'me' of 'wishful thinking'!!!
> You seem to have metamorphosed into an ostrich...

I didn't know that not only did buddha believed in
reincarnation but that he also believed in metamorphosis.

>
>
> >Fwiw, I know God made buddha :) (and you do too)
>
> Hilarious! I have given you no such indication at all!

Just because you gave no indication does not mean you
don't know it.

> Once again and I shall say it slowly....'t h e r e i s n
> o G o d"

A simple multiple choice question that should reveal the
truth here:

Which is greater in sheer quantity?

(a) What you know about the universe.

(b) What you do not know about the universe.

> Here's another slice of 'truth' for you to contemplate -
>
> Noah's Ark: An Engineering Imposibility

The Universe: The True Engineering Impossibility.

>
> Actually the story of Genesis is, even at first glance,
> absurd. First let us look at the ark built by Noah.
> Genesis 6:15 gives its measurements as 300 cubits long, 50
> cubits wide and 30 cubits high. The length of the cubit is
> based on the length of the human forearm and varies among
> the various ancient cultures. For instance, the Babylonian
> cubit was approximately 0.53 metres, the Roman cubit was
> about 0.44 metres while the Hebrew cubit was about 0.56
> metres. Using the Hebrew cubit the ark would have measured
> 168 metres long, 28 metres wide and 17 metres high. There
> are two problems with this ark as described: it is both
> too big and too small at the same time.
>
> It is too big, because before the invention of steel, the
> wooden ark of Noah simply could not have been structurally
> sound and was thus unseaworthy.

Who knows what is possible with the help of the Creator of
the universe?

> The longest wooden ship ever built (i.e. historically
> verified) was the USS Wyoming. This vessel, which was, at
> 110 meters long, a full 50% shorter than Noah’s ark, was
> found to be so unstable that it could only be used for
> short coastal hauls to avoid rough conditions further out
> in the sea. The huge structural stresses that developed in
> the USS Wyoming made the ship sag and, well, it leaked.
> Water thus had to be pumped out continuously to prevent
> the ship from sinking.

Sounds like they needs God's help here.

> Now, here we have Noah’s ark, built with wood, before the
> invention of steel and hydraulic pumps, undergoing the
> turbulent conditions of the flood unscathed. It is simply
> an engineering impossibility.

Sounds like a miracle to me.

Reminds me of:

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

Yes, that's my God and He is the Greatest :)

> It is too small, because there is simply not enough room
> for all the animals. There are extant today over 4,500
> species of mammals, 6,000 species of reptiles, 8,600
> species of birds and 3,000 species of amphibians. Each of
> these have many large members: elephants, camels,
> rhinoceros, hippopotamasus, giraffes, horses, donkeys,
> zebras, cattle, bison, tapirs, pigs, tigers, lions,
> jaguars, panthers, sea lions, walruses, crocodiles,
> alligators, giant turtles, Komodo dragon, snakes,
> ostriches, emus, falcons and giant salamanders. There are
> 23,000 species of fishes, many of which will not be able
> to survive the flood if not taken up into the ark.

Things that swim probably did not need to be in the Ark.

Someone's been eating colorful mushrooms again.

> Each kilogram of fish require about a cubic meter of water
> to survive-this is simply to provide enough oxygen and
> provide space for swimming while sleeping and feeding. The
> volume of water required for the fishes alone would be
> larger than the ark.[4] And then there are the little
> creatures; there are about a million species of insects
> and 60,000 species of arachnids. How were these species
> stored in the ark?

It is my experience that whenever I try to drown insects, I
invariably fail. They have this uncanny ability to hang on
to the smallest debris and make it into a flotation device.
Perhaps they learned this trick from surviving the Flood.

> >> >God is the source of the Bible. Though God had many
> >> >writers, He remains the ultimate editor. May you
> >> >someday realize before you die that the Holy Bible is
> >> >truly God's Word, in Christ's name.
> >>
> >> Which part of it do I take as authoritative though
> >> Andrew???
> >
> >The entire Holy Bible.
> >
> >> There are so many contradictions and errors of fact!!!
> >>
> >Those serve to remind us of our imperfections. They also
> >serve to inform us that God accepts us as we are and
> >indeed loves us as we are.
>
> "The dogma of the infallibility of the Bible is no more
> self-evident than is that of the infallibility of the
> popes." Thomas Henry Huxley (1825-1895)
>

Clearly someone without the gift of truth discernment :)

>
> >> While we're discussing biblical accuracy and
> >> infallibilty, please read carefully each of the
> >> following statements and comment on them in honesty and
> >> some detail so I may understand -
> >>
> >> 1 - Luke 14:26: "If any man come to me, and hate not
> >> his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and
> >> brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he
> >> cannot be my disciple."
> >>
> >> Does this describe you Andrew?
> >>
> >
> >No. I am His grateful servant.
>
> Then you are not acting in accordance with this
> scripture here.
>

I am not His disciple. Instead, I see myself as His
grateful servant.

>
> >> 2 - Have you ever been flogged in a synagogue or
> >> dragged before governors and kings for Jesus' sake?
> >> (Matthew 10:17-18).
> >>
> >
> >No. I remain His grateful servant.
>
> Then you are not acting in accordance with this
> scripture here.
>

I am not His disciple. Instead, I see myself as His
grateful servant.

>
> >> Matthew 10:21-22: "And brother shall deliver up brother
> >> to death, and the father the child; and the children
> >> shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to
> >> be put to death, and ye shall be hated of all men for
> >> my name's sake..."
> >>
> >> Have you had family problems like these?
> >
> >No. I remain His grateful servant.
>
> Then you are not acting in accordance with this
> scripture here.
>

I am not His disciple. Instead, I see myself as His
grateful servant.

>
> >>
> >> Does everybody hate you because of Jesus?
> >>
> >
> >No. However, there are a few who do. They know who
> >they are.
> >
> >>
> >> 3 - Also, are you morally perfect?
> >>
> >
> >No.
> >
> >>
> >> Matthew 5:48 - Jesus commands: "Be ye therefore
> >> perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is
> >> perfect."
> >>
> >> This is an imperative - no if's, and's, or but's at
> >> all, right?
> >>
> >
> >Yes.
>
> Then you are not acting in accordance with this
> scripture here.
>

Correct. I fall short. I am not perfect. Will never be
perfect as hard as I might try to be perfect. That is why He
is my Savior. That is why I serve and follow Him :)

>
> >What Jesus teaches here is beautiful in Matthew 5:
> >
> > 43"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your
> > neighbor and hate your enemy.' 44But I tell you:
> > Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute
> > you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in
> > heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and
> > the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the
> > unrighteous. 46If you love those who love you, what
> > reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors
> > doing that? 47And if you greet only your brothers,
> > what are you doing more than others? Do not even
> > pagans do that? 48Be perfect, therefore, as your
> > heavenly Father is perfect.
> >
> >May God add His blessings to the writing of His Word here
> >within SMC, in Christ's name.
> >
> >Amen
> >
> >God is perfect.
>
> And yet you admit you are imperfect despite Jesus'
> commandment to you?
>

Yes.

Truth is simple.

>
> >> 4 - Are you a fool for Christ Andrew?
> >>
> >
> >I am madly in love with Him.
> >
> >Some years ago, I literally gave my life to Him and He
> >gave it back to me saying He had more for me to do here
> >in this world. So here I am.
> >
> >>
> >> I Corinthians 3:18: "Let no man deceive himself. If any
> >> man among you seemeth to be wise let him become a fool
> >> that he may be wise."
> >>
> >
> >The above message seems to be directed at those who would
> >follow buddha's dharma ways.
>
> According to you I am a fool anyway, so I should have to
> problem ;-)
>

Yes, you have a problem. You are deceiving yourself.

>
> >4When you are assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus and
> >I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus
> >is present, 5hand this man over to Satan, so that the
> >sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on
> >the day of the Lord.
> >
> >Now, what were your questions again?
>
> How would one 'hand a man over to Satan'?
>

Reading further on in I Corinthians 5:

13God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from
among you."

>
> Respectfully, your dharma buddy,
>

Again, many thanks for the kisses :)

You remain in my prayers, neighbor whom I love, 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/?J2DB148A7

Is this spam?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?N69721867
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back