Was Jesus Compassionate



John wrote:

> On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 21:31:11 +0000, Mozz
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Hi Bob,
> >
> >Thanks for articulating the Buddhist view on cosmology
> >so well.
> >
> >>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...
>
> Interesting idea - but I'd be more interested in hearing
> about the first shred of scientific evidence in support of
> this conjecture.
>
> In the other hand, who am I to put limits on how God
> created and continues to create the universe.
>
> John

I would concur :)

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
 
Mozz wrote:

> >>>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...
> >
> >Interesting idea - but I'd be more interested in hearing
> >about the first shred of scientific evidence in support
> >of this conjecture.
>
> Listen to yourself John. You are quite prepared to leap to
> the conclusion that a God was responsible for the Big Bang
> without a single shred of evidence, and yet when another
> perfectly reasonable view of the universe is put forward
> you require evidence!!! Incredible!
>
> >In the other hand, who am I to put limits on how God
> >created and continues to create the universe.
>
> You claimed to not be a 'literalist' in an earlier
> posting. Can you not concieve of your word 'God' meaning
> what we Buddhist's call 'Emptiness' instead of Him being a
> 'personal being'? Or are you infact really a literalist?
>
> Respectfully,
>

Hi Mozz,

It does not take a literalist to believe that Jesus was a
"personal being."

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
 
John wrote:

> On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 14:23:07 -0500, "Bob (this one)"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>=20 20
>>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=20 incorrect, as I've posted
>>>>recently with solid sources. There's an=20 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 -=20
>>>
>>>Ahh, Mozz, isn't it true that Buddhists believe that the
>>>universe was not created but has always existed and
>>>always will? =20
>>>
>>>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=20 what came before it. In fact, one of the
>>conjectures is that if the=20 universe oscillates between
>>expansion and contraction, it may well be=20 that the big
>>bang happened at the instant of complete contraction to=20
>>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=20 currency. Like with virtually every
>>astronomer, physicist,=20 cosmologist, astrophysicist, and
>>anybody else who likes evidence=20 instead of bright red
>>stories written 5000 years ago.
>>
>>Did I ever tell you the one about the turtle that carries
>>the whole=20 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. =20
>>
>>In the new Spencer novel, "Back Story" one of the
>>characters makes a=20 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,=20 huh, "John."
>>
>>Big Bang happened in an instant. Genesis took 6 "days."
>>The sequences=20 of events are rather different, to say
>>the least.
>=20 20
> Well, Bob, how long is one of God's days anyway?
> Especially before there is a rotating earth and a sun to
> measure it by. =20

See, "John," a 'day" is exactly defined by there being a
sun and earth=20 in juxtaposition. Without them, there
is no day.

> You seem to be mistaking me for a literalist. =20

No, "John," I'm seeing you as a blustering fool.

>>>>>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 S=
atan, so that
>>>>>the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved
>>>>>on the day o=
f the Lord.
>>>>>
>>>>>Now, what were your questions again?
>>>>
>>>>How would one 'hand a man over to Satan'?=20
>>>
>>>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=20 person. And there's no chance that an error
>>is being made? Rather a=20 weak action for what has such
>>an ominous sound.

Hey, "John." No comment about how feeble the gesture is? No
comment=20 about how this exactly doesn't deliver anyone to
Satan? I know. It's=20 that pesky content you so hate.

>>But this is interesting and something of a contrast with
>>Chung's=20 fairly constant harping on Mozz about needing
>>other people to find=20 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=20 Satan's property. Means that the
>>unfortunate that you "disfellowship"=20 (hee hee) must
>>need others to help him or he's lost.

No comment on the content here about needing others to help?

>>"disfellowship" <LOL> Anybody can use English words. Takes
>>a wizard to =

>>make up new ones... <LOL>
>>
>>Bob
>=20
> I'm glad I was able to provoke such mirth at your house,
> Bob. But there is a word for people who laugh at things
> that aren't funny.=20

Could the word be "John"?

Poor sappy "John" with his absolutes again. One man's funny
is another=20 man's stepping on his proverbial ****. Like
you do all the time, "John."

> And another one for people who laugh when the joke is on
> them (but don't realize it).=20

"Johannes"? Right. As if...

<LOL> Nice try, "John." Lame, as usual, and that helps to
define you=20 and your unfortunate proclivities. Just for a
hoot, how about in the=20 future try to address the content
instead of your need for propaganda=20 and evasion? I mean
between friends like us.

> I enjoy inventing things but I can't take credit for this
> one. From google (once again)(try it sometime, Bob):
>=20
> disfellowship
>=20
> \Dis*fel"low*ship\, v. t. [See Fellowship, v. t.] To
> exclude from fellowship; to refuse intercourse with, as an
> associate.
>=20
> Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, =A9 1996,
> 1998 MICRA, Inc.=20

Poor "John." It's hilarious enough that so many people
think that=20 nouns should be used as verbs, but it's even
funnier when they=20 compound the silliness by adding yet
more stuff to them.

"To fellowship" is now a verb. <LOL> It seems to include
"intercourse=20 with an associate." There are easier words
for that, "John." Outside=20 your experience?

Nouns into verbs... the full hallmark of the vocabulary-
challenged. <LOL>=

How about you partner with Chung and gospelize the NG even
more? Or=20 maybe consider disbullshitting as a start and
perhaps ensilencing=20 yourself a bit more?

<LOL> Lame "John."

Bob
 
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 unmistakabl=
e
>>>>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 happene=
d
>>>>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 tha=
t
>>>>the extinct volcanoes of France in the Auvergne district
>>>>were compose=
d
>>>>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 th=
e year of the
> Flood.

No, it wasn't because they didn't use the gregorian
calendar, but=20 Chung already knew that. Here's a chart
from Josephus to show the dating:=

Patriarch Years before son's birth
=09
Adam 130 Seth 105 Enos 90 Cainan 70 Maleleel 65 Jared
62 Enoch 65 Mathusela 187 Lamech 182 Noah 600 To the
Deluge-1556
-----------------------------
In the calculations of Bishop Ussher, he dated the arrival
of Abraham=20 in Canaan to 2126 BCE and the Noahic flood at
2349 BCE. The latter is=20 unlikely, because historical
records in China and Egypt continued=20 without disruption
through that date, and contain no record of a=20 massive world-
wide flood that would have wiped out their civilizations.

Josephus, Ussher, and other scholars disagree slightly on
some of=20 their dates. But most agree that a
straightforward reading of the=20 Bible indicates the Deluge
must have taken place in the third=20 millennium before the
birth of Jesus Christ =97 possibly between 2500 BC =

and 2300 BC.
<http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/flooddate.html>
--------------------------
Here's a Christian web site that has a lot to say about the
flood and=20 why it can't have been global:=20
<http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/localflood.html>

"Psalms 104 directly eliminates any possibility of the flood
being=20 global (see Psalms 104-9 - Does it refer to the
Original Creation or=20 the Flood?). In order to accept a
global flood, you must reject Psalms=20 104 and the
inerrancy of the Bible."
-----------------------
Here's a paper on dating the flood that brings together the
various=20 estimates:
<http://www.stanford.edu/~meehan/donnelly/bibchron.html>
----------------------------
Some questions to ponder: "If, at the time of the flood, the
earth was overpopulated by people=20 with technology for
shipbuilding, why were none of their tools or=20 buildings
mixed with with trilobite or dinosaur fossils? How did
the=20 human population rebound so fast? Geneologies in
Genesis put the Tower=20 of Babel about 110 to 150 years
after the Flood [Gen 10:25, 11:10-19].=20 How did the world
population regrow so fast to make its construction=20 (and
the city around it) possible? Similarly, there would have
been=20 very few people around to build Stonehenge and the
Pyramids, found the=20 Sumarian and Indus Valley
civilizations, populate the Americas, etc."
<http://www.bibeln.ws/BibleExposed/flood.htm>

>>>>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 volcanoe=
s.
>>
>>Unlikely if you take the science seriously.
>>
> Suffice it to say that I know the science.

Not in evidence given the rest of the post here.

>>>>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 ar=
e
>>>>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 deposite=
d
>>>>during the height of floods. Low energy sediments, such
>>>>as siltstone,=

>>>>mudstone and claystone, are deposited during the waning
>>>>of the floods=
=2E
>>>>Thus if there is a worldwide flood we would expect that
>>>>there would b=
e
>>>>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 te=
ctonic 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).
>=20
> Ok, so the Flood may predate 4000 to 5000 years ago.

The bible says 1556. Even though the dating is rather
unreliable, it=20 still falls within the 4000 to 5000 year-
ago range.

>>Continue through the fact that tectonic plates haven't
>>moved very much in 5000 years - inches.
>=20
> Ok, so the Flood may have happened much longer than 5000
> years ago.

The bible says 1656. Even though the dating is rather
unreliable, it=20 still falls within the 4000 to 5000 year-
ago range.

>>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.

The bible says 1656. Even though the dating is rather
unreliable, it=20 still falls within the 4000 to 5000 year-
ago range.

>>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.

This deluge had it really happened would have left behind
unmistakable=20 evidence of its occurrence. There remains no
proof that the man in the=20 moon likes green cheese.

There is enormous proof that there has been no flood within
the span=20 of time covered in the generations listed in the
bible. If it happened=20 before the genealogy dating from
Adam, it makes the bible untrue. If=20 it is reported to
have happened since, it makes the bible untrue.

>>>>The second concerns the evidence of the environment of
>>>>the sediments during its time of deposition. Chemical
>>>>and fossil evidence shows tha=
t
>>>>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* fl=
ood certainly
>>>could have been either or both. It was not as if the
>>>earth was comple=
tely 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.
>=20
> Perhaps in a year.

There's no reason to believe that it would take a year given
that=20 constant rain would fall everywhere and dilute
whatever it fell on as=20 it fell. Stream, lake, sea.

The bible says the earth was covered with water to a depth
of 15=20 cubits above the highest hills. The rain began in
the second month of=20 Noah's six hundredth year. The flood
ended in the second month of=20 Noah's six hundred and first
year. That looks like a year.

>>The bible talks about rain for 40 days.
>=20
> Which is not a year.

Duh. But the flood ostensibly persisted well beyond the
rainfall. One=20 reference is to 150 days. Another dates it
as a year.

>>Rain is fresh water.

> Yes it is.
>=20
>>Freshwater streams would become as salty as the average.
>=20
> There would be no streams during the Flood.

Another duh. Whatever streams there were would be altered
before being=20 swept away in a general flood. Just like in
all floods on all the=20 earth. The point is that there
would be no freshwater deposition of=20 sediment because the
salt and fresh water would have mixed.

>>Oceans would become as salty as the average.
>=20
> There would be no oceans either.

There would be one big ocean.

>>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.
>=20
> Probably because they did not have enough time to
> equilibrate. Accordi=
ng to the Holy
> Bible, the waters receded nearly as quickly as they came.

Not according to the dating in KJV it didn't. That would
have to be a=20 total of 80 days. That's about half of the
time directly described in=20 Genesis. And a quarter of the
time spent on the Ark. See above for timing=
=2E

>>So no global water covering...
>>
> ...for a year.

Non sequitur. But it was a year.

>>The other fact is that sediments are not continuous.
>=20
> Sedimentation should not be continuous for uneven terrain.
> Sediments a=
re denser than
> water so they will settle from high points to low points.
> Mountains ar=
e simply not going
> to have much if any sedimentation. After all, rainwater is
> clean (no s=
ediments).
>=20
>>That is, there isn't a constant placement of sediment
>>worldwide. There are pockets of sedimentation, but only
>>pockets.
>=20
> For uneven terrain, those pockets will be the regional low
> points of th=
e terrain.

They don't exist. There are no sedimentations in "regional
low points=20 of the terrain" that substantiate a general
flood. There are only=20 localized examples and they're not
very large. They're not like each=20 other. They don't share
characteristics. They don't share dates of=20 formation.

>>There is no reasonable geological explanation *for* a
>>flood
>=20
> Actually there is: God.

Perhaps the word "geological" was invisible?

>>and a great deal of proof *against* the flood.
>>
> I do not discern one proof here much less a great deal
> of proof.

What a surprise.

>>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."
>=20
> The fact is it is written in the Holy Bible that the Flood
> happened *be=
fore* the
> development of different societies (with different
> languages).

It happened before the people in that small tribe increased
in numbers=20 and dispersed. Chinese record-keeping predates
the writing of the=20 bible by anywhere from 1500 to 4000
years depending on the source.=20 Likewise Egyptian society.

Um, I wonder how many of the sons of Noah were black. Or
had=20 epicanthic flaps. Or lived in Australia. Where,
exactly did they find=20 all those wives mentioned in
Genesis? And who populated the cities=20 they built in just
a few generations? Does that mean that there were=20 others
alive around them? Or did God do another creation of humans
not=20 accounted for?

The contradictions between a literal interpretation of the
Genesis=20 stories and the mtEve idea makes the dating in
the bible simply absurd=20 if that fit is propounded.

> God informs from Genesis 10:
>=20
> 1 This is the account of Shem, Ham and Japheth,
> Noah's sons, who t=
hemselves 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 withi=
n their nations,
> each with its own language.)
>=20
>>Indisputable rational empirical thinking from Bob that you
>>cannot refute Andrew.
>=20
> Seems I have been able to refute neighbor Bob's
> protestations with God'=
s help :)

Not a bit of it. The "refutations" consist of wordplay and
semantic=20 evasions. No science. No evidence. No substance.
Merely=20 unsubstantiated contradiction.

> For more examples of Bob's irrational thinking:
>=20
> http://www.heartmdphd.com/libel.asp

<LOL> Now the truth is irrational...

>>Here's another slice of 'truth' for you to contemplate -
>>
>>Noah's Ark: An Engineering Imposibility
>=20 20
> The Universe: The True Engineering Impossibility.
>=20
>>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.
>=20
> Who knows what is possible with the help of the Creator of
> the universe=
?

Right. Noah and his boys with no engineering background
build the=20 largest wooden ship ever constructed in a land
of small trees. With=20 primitive hand tools. Didn't anybody
notice what they were doing? A=20 ship so large as to
clearly violate the limits of possibility and=20 violate the
physical constraints on the kind of ship they constructed.

And the answer is, "Who knows? Must have been a miracle."
I'm sure=20 they used Occam's Razor to shape their timbers.

>>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=92s 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.
>=20
> Sounds like they needs God's help here.
>=20
>>Now, here we have Noah=92s 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.
>=20
> Sounds like a miracle to me.

And this is "evidence" or "truth" or "explanation?"

>>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.
>=20
> Things that swim probably did not need to be in the Ark.

Most things that swim would die because of maladaptation to
salinity=20 levels. The food chain dies because plants all
die in a universal flood.

But the larger question is space. It's too small to hold all
the animals.=

What did the predators eat while on the ark? Did the ark
have freezers=20 to keep meat fresh for a year? What did
they eat afterward if there=20 were only two of each of
their prey animals. Or even if there were 7=20 pairs of
each? And don't forget that Noah sacrificed lots of
critters=20 when they hit land. Save them in a big boat for
a year and then burn=20 them? Thousands of animals killed?
Blood everywhere.

> Someone's been eating colorful mushrooms again.

To stack unexplained and unmentioned miracle on miracle like
that=20 would seem to suggest the necessity of that as a
source of all the=20 thinking involved. *Not* thinking of
the implications is equally=20 likely a sign.

>>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?
>=20
> 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.

Right. And since this is an utter non sequitur, it's just as
stupid as=20 all the others. Insects have an uncanny
ability. Wow.

What, exactly did these insects eat? Was there a lot of
stuff floating=20 around this inundated world? Maybe dead
animals and people in the=20 billions? How about chunks of
wood and boats? Could lots of other=20 people have floated
up in their boats and survived on the creatures=20 that ate
the carrion floating around? Fishing and spearing aquatic=20
mammals? Were the seas like in the travel brochures for
Hawaii with=20 nothing to mar the surface? How did it smell
with all those billions=20 of dead creatures bloated and
decaying? Did God provide air=20 fresheners? How much manure
did Noah throw overboard?

>>>>>God is the source of the Bible. Though God had many
>>>>>writers, He rem=
ains the
>>>>>ultimate editor. May you someday realize before you die
>>>>>that the Hol=
y 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 inf=
orm us that
>>>God accepts us as we are and indeed loves us as we are.

And that we should accept untruths and shape our lives
accordingly?

>>"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 :)

Translation: Doesn't agree with Chung.

All this airy-fairy literalist stuff is all well and good,
but those=20 people in the bible were living-breathing folks
who had their own=20 problems and solutions. And in the
meantime, they had to make their=20 livings and eat enough
to keep alive, clothe themselves and deal with=20 all their
human questions. Did they cook their food on the ark?
What=20 did they burn for fuel? Driftwood? Animal dung? How
did they line=20 stalls for the big animals? Straw? Where
did it come from? How much=20 could they carry on board? How
did they stop it from molding in the=20 very humid air?

Pastorio
 
John wrote:

> On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 03:12:20 -0500, "Bob (this one)"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>=20 20
>>>>>>How would one 'hand a man over to Satan'?=20
>>>>>
>>>>>By disfellowshipping the man, i.e., barring him from
>>>>>membership and attendance.
>>>>
>>>>"Disfellowshipping..." <LOL> A wonderful backformation.
>>>>Best jargon o=
f=20
>>>>the day. So telling someone they can't play in your
>>>>sandbox is handin=
g=20
>>>>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=20 weak action for what has such an
>>>>ominous sound.
>>
>>Hey, "John." No comment about how feeble the gesture is?
>>No comment=20 about how this exactly doesn't deliver
>>anyone to Satan? I know. It's=20 that pesky content you
>>so hate.
>>
>>>>But this is interesting and something of a contrast with
>>>>Chung's=20 fairly constant harping on Mozz about needing
>>>>other people to find=20 enlightenment. Looks like you're
>>>>contradicting your hero. You say tha=
t=20
>>>>telling someone that they can't be with you means that
>>>>they're now=20 Satan's property. Means that the
>>>>unfortunate that you "disfellowship"=
=20
>>>>(hee hee) must need others to help him or he's lost.
>>
>>No comment on the content here about needing others
>>to help?
>>
>>>>"disfellowship" <LOL> Anybody can use English words.
>>>>Takes a wizard t=
o=20
>>>>make up new ones... <LOL>
>>>>
>>>>Bob
>>>
>>>I'm glad I was able to provoke such mirth at your house,
>>>Bob. But there is a word for people who laugh at things
>>>that aren't funny.=20
>>
>>Could the word be "John"?
>>
>>Poor sappy "John" with his absolutes again. One man's
>>funny is another =

>>man's stepping on his proverbial ****. Like you do all the
>>time, "John.=
"
>>
>>>And another one for people who laugh when the joke is on
>>>them (but don't realize it).=20
>>
>>"Johannes"? Right. As if...
>>
>><LOL> Nice try, "John." Lame, as usual, and that helps to
>>define you=20 and your unfortunate proclivities. Just for
>>a hoot, how about in the=20 future try to address the
>>content instead of your need for propaganda=20 and
>>evasion? I mean between friends like us.
>>
>>>I enjoy inventing things but I can't take credit for this
>>>one. From google (once again)(try it sometime, Bob):
>>>
>>>disfellowship
>>>
>>>\Dis*fel"low*ship\, v. t. [See Fellowship, v. t.] To
>>>exclude from fellowship; to refuse intercourse with, as
>>>an associate.
>>>
>>>Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, =A9
>>>1996, 1998 MICRA,=

>>>Inc.=20
>>
>>Poor "John." It's hilarious enough that so many people
>>think that=20 nouns should be used as verbs, but it's even
>>funnier when they=20 compound the silliness by adding yet
>>more stuff to them.
>>
>>"To fellowship" is now a verb. <LOL> It seems to include
>>"intercourse=20 with an associate." There are easier words
>>for that, "John." Outside=20 your experience?
>>
>>Nouns into verbs... the full hallmark of the vocabulary-
>>challenged. <LO=
L>
>>
>>How about you partner with Chung and gospelize the NG even
>>more? Or=20 maybe consider disbullshitting as a start and
>>perhaps ensilencing=20 yourself a bit more?
>>
>><LOL> Lame "John."
>>
>>Bob
>=20
> Bob, you have convicted yourself of being lame with the
> above blustering diatribe.

Back to your Webster's, Little "John." See the differences
between=20 hooting mockery and a diatribe.

> Your beef is with Mr. Webster, not me. Webster's says the
> word disfellowship is a transitive verb, not me. Go post
> your nonsense to them.

Apparently you don't know how dictionaries are created. They
don't=20 invent words. They don't decide which ones are
"real" words. They=20 merely offer definitions of the ones
that the public already uses.=20 That's why there are so
many silly ones in there like "infrastructure"=20 and pre-
requisites." Sorry for using ones with so many syllables.

> In fact, I think I'm going to give this a try and
> disfellowship you (from me) for a while. It's pointless
> talking to you anyway since you ignore the facts in front
> of your face. =20
>=20
> Bye,

<LOL> WHOOOOOOOoooooooooosh

Bob
 
Hi Mozz,

>
> >You seem to be projecting your fears. This is
> >understandable, I fear God too.
>
> I do fear that you are threatened in some way by me. The
> tone of your language seems to indicate this.
>

You may certainly believe what you want to believe.

> >> It will only cause you more suffering.
> >
> >I do not fear suffering, Mozz.
>
> Do you enjoy suffering?
>

No. But I accept it as part of being human and of being a
Christian in this world.

>
> >> "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.
>
> The Biblical date given is in fact 1656.

If that were true, it should be easy for you to cite the
chapter and verse where the number 1656 appears.

> The Bible dating is notoriously contradictory and
> unreliable.

The Holy Bible is not a newspaper.

> The date 2450 BC is the nearest to that date there is any
> evidence whatsoever of 'localised' flooding 'only' in that
> region. If there had been a World Flood the evidence for
> it would be even more striking and clear.
>

Again, there is no evidence/proof that a global flood has
never taken place at any time in our past. It is my belief
that the Holy Bible is referring to this global flood as the
great 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.
>
> In that case, you will know from your grasp of geology in
> that particular region that that was not the case.
>

I don't "know" this.

>
> >> "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.
>
> Not according to the infallible dating of the Bible ;-)
>

We've discussed before that the human genealogies are
fallible though the Holy Bible is not (see our
discussions about the genealogies of Joseph). Because
your dating is based on human genealogies as reported by
the writers of the Bible, it logically follows that the
dating will be fallible.

>
> >
> >> 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.
>
> Not according to the infallible dating of the Bible ;-)
>

We've discussed before that the human genealogies are
fallible though the Holy Bible is not (see our
discussions about the genealogies of Joseph). Because
your dating is based on human genealogies as reported by
the writers of the Bible, it logically follows that the
dating will be fallible.

>
> >> 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.
>
> The Bible states the Flood occured 1656 ;-)
>

We've discussed before that the human genealogies are
fallible though the Holy Bible is not (see our
discussions about the genealogies of Joseph). Because
your dating is based on human genealogies as reported by
the writers of the Bible, it logically follows that the
dating will be fallible.

> >
> >
> >>
> >> 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.
>
> Only to your closed and fearful mind.
>

More buddhist wishful thinking.

>
> >> 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.
>
> I hope you are a better medical doctor than you are a
> geologist Andrew! (LOL)
>

Your falling to ad hominems does not bode well for
your dharma.

>
> >> 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).
>
> Now you really are being pedantic and ridiculous. The
> Egyptian and Chinese civilisations are two of the oldest
> civilisations in the World, long predating the growth of
> the Middle Eastern tribal cultures.
>

I write truthfully. I see that you snipped the evidence.
This does not bode well for your dharma.

>
> >> 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 :)
>
> You have not refuted anything with rational empirical
> reason to back you up.

Truth is stronger than reason.

> >
> >For more examples of Bob's irrational thinking:
> >
> >http://www.heartmdphd.com/libel.asp
>
> This link is irrelevant to the science we are discussing.
> I suggest you seek counciling for this obsession about
> Bob, or keep turning those cheeks as your Lord commands...

If I were obsessed with Bob, I would be responding to his
posts here.

I only have two cheeks, dear Mozz whom I love :)

>
> >> >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.
>
> Take my word for it.
>

Your feigned laughter betrays you.

> >> 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.
>
> the same ridiculous question applies equally to any
> theist. And proves nothing in either case.
>

Your inability to answer this simple question speaks
volumes.

>
> >Sounds like a miracle to me.
>
> Yes. Most things are miracles to you it seems! ;-)
>

Most things are. Ha, the wonders and mysteries of life and
the universe.

Answer one question and end up with many more questions.

>
> Why bother with science all these years?

Science is not a bother, dear Mozz. For the truth seeker,
science at its essence is the search for a better
understanding truth..

> 'Mr Chung sir, what makes the Sun shine?' 'It's a mircale
> from God boy! That's all we need to know!' (LOL)
>

Is that what bothers you?

God knowing more than you will ever know?

Is that why you prefer emptiness?

>
> >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.
>
> How compassionate of you to try to drown insects.
>

Those were the days before my Lord saved me :)

>
> >> "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 :)
>
> You think the Popes are infallible too?
>

No. The only infallible man who walked on this earth is my
Lord Jesus Christ :)

> >> According to you I am a fool anyway, so I should have
> >> to problem ;-)
> >>
> >
> >Yes, you have a problem. You are deceiving yourself.
>
> I am awake and you still slumber.
>

May my being able to convey His message whilst I sleep
glorify Him :)

>
> Respectfully,
>

Again, thanks for the kisses :)

Your Christian friend 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
 
John wrote:

> <snip>That organization's motto is:
>
> (Taken from the writings of Hans Küng) "No peace among the
> nations without peace among the religions. No peace among
> religions without dialogue between the religions. No
> dialogue between the religions without investigation of
> the foundation of the religions."
>
> I think I would subscribe to this point of view and would
> expand my previous statement to Mozz about the purpose of
> my discussions with him to include the above, especially
> the third point.
>
> Now if I could only think of an additional reason
> involving cardiology.... ;^)
>
> John

Lazarus was in asystole for 3 days when Jesus Christ
resuscitated him.

Even all the greatest cardiologists put together in the
present age would be sorely challenged to outperform Christ
in curing this cardiac problem :)

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

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