Was Jesus Compassionate



William Nunn wrote:

> "Carol T" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "William Nunn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
> >
> >
> > > His compassion is not independently verifiable. I know his tomb is in
> India
> > > though. True. He was a prophet of god just like the Shakyamuni Buddha
> was a
> > > prophet of all the deities.<<<<<<<<
> >
> > I am so sorry my friend bit you should not make him into someone he is not and was not. He left
> > his wife and new born child at a time when it would have condemned his wife to a miserable
> > existence and his child to a possible life of utter poverty.
> >
> > He did not carry his burden as a disciple of God, He didn't know God. I am not saying that he
> > didn't want to know God either, just that he found a way of suppressing His need to address
> > issues in his life, and a need for God.
> >
> > If an elder teaches that self hypnosis or meditation is way to suppress the inner need for
> > forgiveness, then the act of doing so cannot be good for the whole community.
> >
> > The Buddha couldn't forgive other people's sins because he didn't have the authority to do so,
> > and he wouldn't have been able to help those who simply couldn't understand how to suppress
> > inner needs because they were children, or adults with a low IQ, the mentally disabled or simply
> > those whose needs were so great that no one but God could ever help.
> >
> > This is not a criticism of the Buddha himself, but an acknowledgment of his needs as a man, and
> > that he was simply a man. Only people who would think of him 'as a God' would not have seen his
> > own terrible suffering. _His_ own needs are what drove him to search for Himself, not the needs
> > of other people, or for prophacy.
> >
> > Carol T
>
> I dno't know Carol really, but reading the story he wanted more depth to his life OUTSIDE the
> palace. He viewed the suffering and the sick, and none of it made sense at all, at the time.

The wages of sin are suffering and death.

> He then contemplated finding a way out to all this which lead to meditation, emptying the mind of
> all the ****.

If he found a way out, he would still be alive.

> Which I need to do more!

Learn from the One who has risen and beaten death.

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/?G1BB12C67

Is this spam?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?N69721867
 
"William Nunn" <nopenope> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> I dno't know Carol really, but reading the story he wanted more depth to his life OUTSIDE the
> palace. <<<<<<<<<<

He went in search of _himself_, not to help others. Pulling others into the guilt of leaving a new
baby and deserting a wife when being left would have carried a terrible social stigma would have
been to have made 'himself' feel better.

He used other people to suppress _his_ own need for forgiveness. People often do this when they have
left someone and feel guilty. You only need to sit in a social place and hear people draw others
into their justifications to understand this. It's something any good
psychologist/philosopher/minister would be aware of too.

As an educated man he would have mesmerised the people he didn't normally mix with, and he almost
certainly manipulated his education to give himself power. His philosophies are simply drawn on a
collection of common proverbs, all of which are in the Bible. Any educated person today can read
the Proverbs.

Keeping people away from their true Lord is a sin against them, their families and their children's
children. Providing people with an image of himself to worship is another sin. Imagery may provide
one with a love and the other with a repulsion, setting them up for failure and emptiness; this is
not God's way.

Jesus taught that God's way is for the growth of children in His love, that they would grow up
knowing Him and that He is there for them even when they are alone, standing by their families and
using their God given wisdom to fertilise their seed.

Carol T
 
"Carol T" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "William Nunn" <nopenope> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
>
>
> > I dno't know Carol really, but reading the story he wanted more depth to
his
> > life OUTSIDE the palace. <<<<<<<<<<
>
>
> He went in search of _himself_, not to help others. Pulling others into the guilt of leaving a new
> baby and deserting a wife when being left would have carried a terrible social stigma would have
> been to have made 'himself' feel better.
>
> He used other people to suppress _his_ own need for forgiveness. People often do this when they
> have left someone and feel guilty. You only need to sit in a social place and hear people draw
> others into their justifications to understand this. It's something any good
> psychologist/philosopher/minister would be aware of too.
>
> As an educated man he would have mesmerised the people he didn't normally mix with, and he almost
> certainly manipulated his education to give himself power. His philosophies are simply drawn on a
> collection of common proverbs, all of which are in the Bible. Any educated person today can read
> the Proverbs.
>
> Keeping people away from their true Lord is a sin against them, their families and their
> children's children. Providing people with an image of himself to worship is another sin. Imagery
> may provide one with a love and the other with a repulsion, setting them up for failure and
> emptiness; this is not God's way.
>
> Jesus taught that God's way is for the growth of children in His love, that they would grow up
> knowing Him and that He is there for them even when they are alone, standing by their families and
> using their God given wisdom to fertilise their seed.
>
> Carol T

I severely disagree. You seem bigoted and attack Buddism. Gautama Buddha was a wonderful man. After
all he discovered enlightenment through meditation. I have not attacked christianity. Come back to
debate when you don't act like a troll. You believe what you do, however if you impose it through
force then you will collectively destroy the world.
 
"William Nunn" <nopenope> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Carol T" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "William Nunn" <nopenope> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
> >
> >
> > > I dno't know Carol really, but reading the story he wanted more depth to
> his
> > > life OUTSIDE the palace. <<<<<<<<<<
> >
> >
> > He went in search of _himself_, not to help others. Pulling others into the guilt of leaving a
> > new baby and deserting a wife when being left would have carried a terrible social stigma would
> > have been to have made 'himself' feel better.
> >
> > He used other people to suppress _his_ own need for forgiveness. People often do this when they
> > have left someone and feel guilty. You only need to sit in a social place and hear people draw
> > others into their justifications to understand this. It's something any good
> > psychologist/philosopher/minister would be aware of too.
> >
> > As an educated man he would have mesmerised the people he didn't normally mix with, and he
> > almost certainly manipulated his education to give himself power. His philosophies are simply
> > drawn on a collection of common proverbs, all of which are in the Bible. Any educated person
> > today can read the Proverbs.
> >
> > Keeping people away from their true Lord is a sin against them, their families and their
> > children's children. Providing people with an image of himself to worship is another sin.
> > Imagery may provide one with a love and the other with a repulsion, setting them up for failure
> > and emptiness; this is not God's way.
> >
> > Jesus taught that God's way is for the growth of children in His love, that they would grow up
> > knowing Him and that He is there for them even when they are alone, standing by their families
> > and using their God given wisdom to fertilise their seed.
> >
> > Carol T
>
> I severely disagree.

As is your right.

> You seem bigoted and attack Buddism. Gautama Buddha was a wonderful man. After all he discovered
> enlightenment through meditation.

Carol's point is well taken concerning the perspective of Siddhartha's family.

> I have not attacked christianity.

Seems you are taking Carol's comments about Siddhartha's behavior rather personally.

> Come back to debate when you don't act like a troll.

Will this ad hominem convince anyone that you are enlightened?

> You believe what you do, however if you impose it through force then you will collectively destroy
> the world.

It is unlikely that the fate of buddhism is tied with the fate of the world.

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/?G1BB12C67

Is this spam?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?N69721867
 
Richard Lucarno wrote:

> On 20 Feb 2004 10:38:11 -0800, [email protected] (Carol T) wrote:
>
> ^"William Nunn" <nopenope> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> ^ ^ ^> I dno't know Carol really, but reading the story he wanted more depth to his ^> life
> OUTSIDE the palace. <<<<<<<<<< ^ ^ ^He went in search of _himself_, not to help others. Pulling
> others ^into the guilt of leaving a new baby and deserting a wife when being ^left would have
> carried a terrible social stigma would have been to ^have made 'himself' feel better.
>
> You said this before, and it's just as wrong as it was without the repetition.

How do you know it is wrong?

> Whatever he may have felt upon leaving them, his children (and thus the king's grandchildren) were
> heirs to the throne, and would have been treated as such. Also, where you get this nonsense about
> their being a stigma upon the wife and child because HE left is beyond me.
>

Wife and child abandonment is stigmatizing.

>
> ^ ^He used other people to suppress _his_ own need for forgiveness.
>
> Perhaps after having nearly starved himself to death, he worked past his need for forgiveness,
> having already punished himself.
>

Self-punishment does not fulfill the need for forgiveness.

>
> ^People often do this when they have left someone and feel guilty. You ^only need to sit in a
> social place and hear people draw others into ^their justifications to understand this. It's
> something any good ^psychologist/philosopher/minister would be aware of too. ^ ^ As an educated
> man he would have mesmerised the people he didn't ^normally mix with, and he almost certainly
> manipulated his education ^to give himself power. His philosophies are simply drawn on a
> ^collection of common proverbs, all of which are in the Bible. Any ^educated person today can read
> the Proverbs.
>
> And you studied Buddhism to learn this, or did your minister tell you?
>

Sounds like she has read the Proverbs.

>
> ^ ^ Keeping people away from their true Lord is a sin against them, their ^families and their
> children's children.
>
> Jesus hadn't even been conceived (immaculately or normally) when Siddartha lived, so you are
> talking ****.

Here Carol would be referring to Lord God the Father rather than the Son.

> Is everyone who was born before Jesus' time damned to hell?

No.

> How about those who had never even heard his name in their lifetime?

Yes, for those who lived after Christ's resurrection.

> It was Paul (ne Saul) who made Jesus famous throughout the west, not Jesus himself.
>

Without Jesus' teachings, crucifixion, and resurrection, there would have been no Good News for Paul
to preach.

>
> ^ Providing people with an image ^of himself to worship is another sin. Imagery may provide one
> with a ^love and the other with a repulsion, setting them up for failure and ^emptiness; this is
> not God's way.
>
> Garbage, and a display of incredible ignorance, because Buddha did no such thing, and, like any
> knowledgeable Hindu of the time, could have told you that the images and symbols of the
> supernatural were the final barrier to understanding. Buddha provided no images of himself for
> people to worship -- his followers did that after he died. The images, to most Buddhists, would be
> considered not merely worship objects, but something to get past on the way to enlightenment. This
> is not done by smashing idols, since those that smash idols are as captivated by them as those who
> venerate them. This was brought home to me when I saw a newly "saved" Christian and his Christian
> friends destroy a set of tapes that a Hindu teacher had once given him, which he had come to
> believe were works of the devil. They did a lttle dance over some newspapers that his brother's
> dog had been "training" on, smashing the tapes underfoot. It was one of the most disgusting
> displays of religious depravity I've ever seen. Do you think Jesus gave them points for that?

No.

>
> Did you get your concept of Buddhism from hanging around Chinese curio shops, or something?
>

I doubt that Carol hangs around Chinese curio shops.

>
> ^Jesus taught that God's way is for the growth of children in His love, ^that they would grow up
> knowing Him and that He is there for them even ^when they are alone, standing by their families
> and using their God ^given wisdom to fertilise their seed.
>
> Then why did Jesus tell his disciples to leave their native villages, and give up all their
> worldly goods, thus depriving their families of sustenance, and follow him?

Jesus is God the Son. He provided and continues to provide for His disciples.

> What guilts were they carrying when they claimed to see Jesus rise from the dead?

There is no guilt in the truth.

Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

Andrew

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

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

What is all this about?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?G5EF42A77

Is this spam?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?N69721867
 
Richard Lucarno <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

>>>>>>>>>>>>>.. Also, where you get this nonsense
> about their being a stigma upon the wife and child because HE left is beyond me.<<<<<<<<<<<

It wasn't this centaury, it was a time when women held a very low social status.

> Perhaps after having nearly starved himself to death, he worked past his need for forgiveness,
> having already punished himself.<<<<<<<<<,

You cannot work past it, he found a way to suppress it and pulled others into it. Any educated
individual who put themselves amongst the uneducated in that day would have had an enormous power
over others, especially if they appeared to have been helping them. Having walked out of one palace
he needed another court to govern, his other option was to go back to what had driven him out.
Without personal power an educated man would not have been able to live amongst those who were
living in abject poverty as he was in a different world to that he'd grown up in. Human nature is
measurable regardless of the time incidences take place. Any educated person cannot fail to improve
the lives of the miserably down trodden and uneducated and gain power over others through it.

>>>>>>>> And you studied Buddhism to learn this, or did your minister
tell you?<<<<<<

I have studied plenty of psychology and theology. However, that is irrelevant, he did not practice
the ways of God.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so you are talking ****. Is everyone who was born
> before Jesus' time damned to hell? <<<<<<<<<

The law of sin was written long before Jesus and the Buddha were even born. Read through the Old
Testament to discover this, it's interwoven in God's ways.

>>>>>>>>>>>>Buddha provided no images of himself
> for people to worship -- his followers did that after he died.<<<<<<<<<

He did it, he did it through being who he was, making himself their idol and not giving all
glory to God.

>>>>>>>>>>.They did a lttle dance
> over some newspapers that his brother's dog had been "training" on, smashing the tapes underfoot.
> It was one of the most disgusting displays of religious depravity I've ever seen. Do you think
> Jesus gave them points for that?<<<<<<<<<<<<<

I have no idea what you have seen or why it disgusted you. Christianity is accepting Christ, who is
one with God and the Holy Spirit, as your personal saviour and then trying your best to live up to
His teachings. The devil has always been around, since the beginning of time. Maybe they were
showing their disgust that he'd managed to get the better of them.

>>>>>>>>> Then why did Jesus tell his disciples to leave their native
villages,
> and give up all their worldly goods, thus depriving their families of sustenance, and follow him?
> What guilts were they carrying when they claimed to see Jesus rise from the dead?<<<<<<<<<<<

If they did this they did it for God, not a mortal man. Any guilt's they carried were that of mortal
men, just as the Buddha was. Through Jesus' death on the cross He forgave them.

God's way is to have children follow Him, love Him, to know His law and to grow up knowing that He
is with them at all times. It's arrogant of any adult, whoever they are, to teach the suppression of
a child's need for God in their lives.

Jesus also taught that to become a disciple of His then their love for God must be so great that it
is only comparable to hate of their own family members. This was a powerful way of saying don't
follow me unless you understand that depth of love. He required His disciples to understand and
acknowledge the ways of His Father, that they could freely make the choice and understand the impact
of their decision on others. Their children and wives would have experienced the true power of God
through love; such power will only have been held in reverence and accepted by them as they had been
taught. That is an awesome thing and not comparable to what the Buddha did in any way shape of form.
Who do you think his wife and son revered having been left for his search of _himself_?

"If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and
sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple." Luke 14:26

Jesus can be with you now through the Holy Spirit, the Buddha cannot, all he has left you is a way
to suppress your own needs and to ignore the needs of our children. The Buddha is not and was not
God, he was his own Lord in his own kingdom.

Carol T
 
Hello Carol - I have been following this debate with interest and respectfully I must point out that
you are mistaken regarding Indian historical culture and especially Buddhism. I understand that you
have chosen to believe in a particular version of Christian theology. Unfortunately though you are
also exhibiting a damaging state of imbalance and partiality when making pronouncements on other
equally valid and proven systems of belief.

>It wasn't this centaury, it was a time when women held a very low social status.

If you look at any academic cultural and social analyses of the Indian sub-continent in the time of
Siddhartha, you will be pleasently surprised to find that it was one of the most civilised and
highly developed cultural regions in the world. Rivaling even Ancient Greece in it's cultivation of
civilisation. The levels of poverty were nothing like witnessed in India today, infact western
Europe and the Middle East was by far the inferior in terms of living standards at the time. Women
were treated very liberally, and especially women of noble rank. I can understand your confusion, if
you are judging by Middle Eastern standards of the time, where generally speaking women were held in
very low status - look to the Talmud to witness how women were not allowed the same Temple access as
men etc...The Indians were somewhat more progressive.

>> Perhaps after having nearly starved himself to death, he worked past his need for forgiveness,
>> having already punished himself.<<<<<<<<<,

Forgiveness? To whom? To What? Please remember Siddhartha was not labouring under any Judeo-
Christian concepts of the Fall or Sin.

>You cannot work past it, he found a way to suppress it and pulled others into it.

Any good buddhist practitioner worth their salt would tell you that 'suppression' is unhealthy.
Siddhartha found this by initially practicing aecetic extremes. His wise discovery was the doctine
of the Middle Way - ie: do not 'force' or 'suppress' anything but find the balance.

>Any educated individual who put themselves amongst the uneducated in that day would have had an
>enormous power over others, especially if they appeared to have been helping them. Having walked
>out of one palace he needed another court to govern, his other option was to go back to what had
>driven him out.

So many false assumptions about Siddhartha's personal psychology. As someone who has studied
psychology (as I have also) you should be much more circumspect about rushing to judgement without
the facts. You assumptions about Indian historical culture are wrong once again. It was the
widespread tradition in those days, that wandering aesetics
- holy men - would be supported and honoured by the society as a whole. They were viewed as heroic,
regardless of position or education. Infact, many were highly educated, and Siddhartha would not
have been seen as an exception in that regard.

>
>I have studied plenty of psychology and theology. However, that is irrelevant, he did not practice
>the ways of God.

If you studied Psychology or indeed the Psychology 'of' Theology you would be able to seperate
the subjective belief from the objective facts. Practicing the ways of (a) God are a matter of
faith, not fact.

>The law of sin was written long before Jesus and the Buddha were even born. Read through the Old
>Testament to discover this, it's interwoven in God's ways.

The natural law of karma was truth even before Abraham and the prophets and centuries before Jesus
of Nazareth was born. And it continues to remain the truth. That is my belief as a buddhist, you
believe in the law of sin as a christian, and a communist believes in the laws of socialism leading
to economic equality for all. Go figure. I accept that although I feel I am right in my beliefs,
others may feel otherwise - and that's ok.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>Buddha provided no images of himself
>> for people to worship -- his followers did that after he died.<<<<<<<<<
>
>
>He did it, he did it through being who he was, making himself their idol and not giving all
>glory to God.

He did not accept the need to conjure a belief in a Creator Deity. Did not the Lord say to not make
any graven images or idols of Himself in the Talmud? Yet do I not see crucifixes in most churches or
around people's necks? Or the sign of the fish? The point early theists were making - which is the
same as that of the buddha - was 'let go of attachment' - 'spirit is found not in things, whether
they be images, books or people'.

>I have no idea what you have seen or why it disgusted you. Christianity is accepting Christ, who is
>one with God and the Holy Spirit, as your personal saviour and then trying your best to live up to
>His teachings. The devil has always been around, since the beginning of time. Maybe they were
>showing their disgust that he'd managed to get the better of them.

Ah...let's conjure the devil - better known as the Archetypal Judeo-Christian scape-goat... And a
symbol of the death of the intellect!

>Then why did Jesus tell his disciples to leave their native villages,
>> and give up all their worldly goods, thus depriving their families of sustenance, and follow him?
>> What guilts were they carrying when they claimed to see Jesus rise from the dead?<<<<<<<<<<<
>
>
>If they did this they did it for God, not a mortal man.

So anything that appears to be 'for God' is ok? Killing? Murder? So called 'just wars'??? Whatever
excuse you conjure, the families left really were deprived of their sustenance by the loss of their
breadwinners.

>Any guilt's they carried were that of mortal men, just as the Buddha was. Through Jesus' death on
>the cross He forgave them.

>God's way is to have children follow Him, love Him, to know His law and to grow up knowing that He
>is with them at all times. It's arrogant of any adult, whoever they are, to teach the suppression
>of a child's need for God in their lives.

It's arrogance to assume that just because one's 'belief' in God is seems like absolute truth for
one, that everyone else must follow or be damned. It's called 'Fundamenalism' or 'intolerance' and
it's the death of the intellect - see Al Queda for an example of it in action.

>Jesus also taught that to become a disciple of His then their love for God must be so great that it
>is only comparable to hate of their own family members. unless you understand that depth of love.
>He required His disciples to understand and acknowledge the ways of His Father, that they could
>freely make the choice and understand the impact of their decision on others. Their children and
>wives would have experienced the true power of God through love; such power will only have been
>held in reverence and accepted by them as they had been taught. That is an awesome thing and not
>comparable to what the Buddha did in any way shape of form. Who do you think his wife and son
>revered having been left for his search of _himself_?

His wife and son later chose to become followers of buddha's Noble Eightfold Path to liberation and
it is said they both reached Enlightenment before they died. Lord Buddha taught us all the way to
Enlightenment and Liberation from suffering. That is an awesome thing and not comparable in the
least to what you have portrayed as God's mission. Although I accept that you may not be the most
articulate and persuasive supporter of Christian theology (of which I have studied also and have
great respect for).

>"If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and
>sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple." Luke 14:26

By the same spirit Siddhartha was right to leave his family also, his quest was a righteous and
noble quest for the Truth and he also found
it.

>Jesus can be with you now through the Holy Spirit, the Buddha cannot,

We all share buddha nature. Our buddha nature (holy spirit) can be accessed by practice of
meditation (prayer) and the cultivation of wisdom and compassion.

>all he has left you is a way to suppress your own needs and to ignore the needs of our children.
>The Buddha is not and was not God, he was his own Lord in his own kingdom.

The buddha never claimed to be a God, neither did he believe in any Gods. The buddha taught that no
kingdom truly exists other than Emptiness. All form is emptiness, all emptiness is form.

May the blessed bodhicitta spread throughout all realms of being and bring all beings to
enlightenment swiftly.

Respectfully, Mozz
 
Mozz <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Hello Carol - I have been following this debate with interest and respectfully I must point out
> that you are mistaken regarding Indian historical culture and especially Buddhism.

Hello Mozz -

You are welcome to cite references that support your dissenting view.

> I understand that you have chosen to believe in a particular version of Christian theology.

Carol has accepted Christ to be her personal Lord and Savior.

> Unfortunately though you are also exhibiting a damaging state of imbalance and partiality when
> making pronouncements on other equally valid and proven systems of belief.

Damaging for whom?

> >It wasn't this centaury, it was a time when women held a very low social status.
>
> If you look at any academic cultural and social analyses of the Indian sub-continent in the time
> of Siddhartha, you will be pleasently surprised to find that it was one of the most civilised and
> highly developed cultural regions in the world. Rivaling even Ancient Greece in it's cultivation
> of civilisation. The levels of poverty were nothing like witnessed in India today, infact western
> Europe and the Middle East was by far the inferior in terms of living standards at the time. Women
> were treated very liberally, and especially women of noble rank. I can understand your confusion,
> if you are judging by Middle Eastern standards of the time, where generally speaking women were
> held in very low status - look to the Talmud to witness how women were not allowed the same Temple
> access as men etc...The Indians were somewhat more progressive.

Then you would agree that women held a lower social status then men?

> >> Perhaps after having nearly starved himself to death, he worked past his need for forgiveness,
> >> having already punished himself.<<<<<<<<<,
>
> Forgiveness? To whom? To What? Please remember Siddhartha was not labouring under any Judeo-
> Christian concepts of the Fall or Sin.

Did he not recognize suffering of others?

> >You cannot work past it, he found a way to suppress it and pulled others into it.
>
> Any good buddhist practitioner worth their salt would tell you that 'suppression' is unhealthy.
> Siddhartha found this by initially practicing aecetic extremes. His wise discovery was the doctine
> of the Middle Way - ie: do not 'force' or 'suppress' anything but find the balance.

Did this help him overcome death?

> >Any educated individual who put themselves amongst the uneducated in that day would have had an
> >enormous power over others, especially if they appeared to have been helping them. Having walked
> >out of one palace he needed another court to govern, his other option was to go back to what had
> >driven him out.
>
> So many false assumptions about Siddhartha's personal psychology. As someone who has studied
> psychology (as I have also) you should be much more circumspect about rushing to judgement without
> the facts.

Carol has not "judged" Siddhartha in her comments.

> You assumptions about Indian historical culture are wrong once again. It was the widespread
> tradition in those days, that wandering aesetics
> - holy men - would be supported and honoured by the society as a whole. They were viewed as
> heroic, regardless of position or education. Infact, many were highly educated, and Siddhartha
> would not have been seen as an exception in that regard.

The "holy men" probably could have attributed much of their influence to their being highly educated
as you have described them to be.

> >
> >I have studied plenty of psychology and theology. However, that is irrelevant, he did not
> >practice the ways of God.
>
> If you studied Psychology or indeed the Psychology 'of' Theology you would be able to seperate the
> subjective belief from the objective facts. Practicing the ways of (a) God are a matter of faith,
> not fact.

Walking with Christ is a matter of obedience more than either faith or fact.

Even those who would oppose Christ, acknowledge Christ either in faith or fact in their opposition.

> >The law of sin was written long before Jesus and the Buddha were even born. Read through the Old
> >Testament to discover this, it's interwoven in God's ways.
>
> The natural law of karma was truth

Jesus remains the truth.

> even before Abraham and the prophets and centuries before Jesus of Nazareth was born.

Jesus existed at the time of the universe's creation.

> And it continues to remain the truth.

Respectfully, Mozz, it never was the truth.

> That is my belief as a buddhist,

Believing something does not make it the truth.

The truth is independent of its proponents.

> you believe in the law of sin as a christian,

A Christian believes in salvation through Christ.

> and a communist believes in the laws of socialism leading to economic equality for all. Go figure.
> I accept that although I feel I am right in my beliefs, others may feel otherwise - and that's ok.

A Christian *knows* that only through Christ, our Messiah and Savior, can we be made unblemished and
presentable to God in heaven to receive eternal life in His Kingdom. A Christian also *knows* that
there will be folks who feel otherwise because it has been prophesied that those whose names are not
written in the Book of Life will be cast into the lake of fire.

For it is written in Revelations 20:

15If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

> > >>>>>>>>>>>>Buddha provided no images of himself
> >> for people to worship -- his followers did that after he died.<<<<<<<<<
> >
> >
> >He did it, he did it through being who he was, making himself their idol and not giving all glory
> >to God.
>
> He did not accept the need to conjure a belief in a Creator Deity.

God conjured up Buddha. Not the other way around.

> Did not the Lord say to not make any graven images or idols of Himself in the Talmud? Yet do I not
> see crucifixes in most churches or around people's necks?

Is the crucifix a graven image of Christ?

> Or the sign of the fish?

Is the sign of the fish a graven image of Christ?

> The point early theists were making - which is the same as that of the buddha - was 'let go of
> attachment' - 'spirit is found not in things, whether they be images, books or people'.

God made this point.

> >I have no idea what you have seen or why it disgusted you. Christianity is accepting Christ, who
> >is one with God and the Holy Spirit, as your personal saviour and then trying your best to live
> >up to His teachings. The devil has always been around, since the beginning of time. Maybe they
> >were showing their disgust that he'd managed to get the better of them.
>
> Ah...let's conjure the devil - better known as the Archetypal Judeo-Christian scape-goat... And a
> symbol of the death of the intellect!

It is prophesied in Revelations 20:

7When the thousand years are over, Satan will be released from his prison 8and will go out to
deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth--Gog and Magog--to gather them for battle.
In number they are like the sand on the seashore. 9They marched across the breadth of the earth
and surrounded the camp of God's people, the city he loves. But fire came down from heaven and
devoured them. 10And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur,
where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for
ever and ever.

> >Then why did Jesus tell his disciples to leave their native villages,
> >> and give up all their worldly goods, thus depriving their families of sustenance, and follow
> >> him? What guilts were they carrying when they claimed to see Jesus rise from the
> >> dead?<<<<<<<<<<<
> >
> >
> >If they did this they did it for God, not a mortal man.
>
> So anything that appears to be 'for God' is ok? Killing? Murder? So called 'just wars'??? Whatever
> excuse you conjure, the families left really were deprived of their sustenance by the loss of
> their breadwinners.

God will judge. Not you or I.

> >Any guilt's they carried were that of mortal men, just as the Buddha was. Through Jesus' death on
> >the cross He forgave them.
>
> >God's way is to have children follow Him, love Him, to know His law and to grow up knowing that
> >He is with them at all times. It's arrogant of any adult, whoever they are, to teach the
> >suppression of a child's need for God in their lives.
>
> It's arrogance to assume that just because one's 'belief' in God is seems like absolute truth for
> one, that everyone else must follow or be damned.

So it is prophesied.

> It's called 'Fundamenalism' or 'intolerance' and it's the death of the intellect - see Al Queda
> for an example of it in action.

So you judge God to be "intolerant" of disbelief?

> >Jesus also taught that to become a disciple of His then their love for God must be so great that
> >it is only comparable to hate of their own family members. unless you understand that depth of
> >love. He required His disciples to understand and acknowledge the ways of His Father, that they
> >could freely make the choice and understand the impact of their decision on others. Their
> >children and wives would have experienced the true power of God through love; such power will
> >only have been held in reverence and accepted by them as they had been taught. That is an awesome
> >thing and not comparable to what the Buddha did in any way shape of form. Who do you think his
> >wife and son revered having been left for his search of _himself_?
>
> His wife and son later chose to become followers of buddha's Noble Eightfold Path to liberation
> and it is said they both reached Enlightenment before they died. Lord Buddha taught us all the way
> to Enlightenment and Liberation from suffering.

Is it now your claim that Buddha is your lord/god?

> That is an awesome thing and not comparable in the least to what you have portrayed as God's
> mission. Although I accept that you may not be the most articulate and persuasive supporter of
> Christian theology (of which I have studied also and have great respect for).

(...and turned your back on, out of respect? )

> >"If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and
> >sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple." Luke 14:26
>
> By the same spirit Siddhartha was right to leave his family also, his quest was a righteous and
> noble quest for the Truth and he also found
> it.

Glad to hear that you believe that Siddhartha found Christ (who is the Truth).

> >Jesus can be with you now through the Holy Spirit, the Buddha cannot,
>
> We all share buddha nature. Our buddha nature (holy spirit) can be accessed by practice of
> meditation (prayer) and the cultivation of wisdom and compassion.

It sounds like you are confusing ideals with spirit.

> >all he has left you is a way to suppress your own needs and to ignore the needs of our children.
> >The Buddha is not and was not God, he was his own Lord in his own kingdom.
>
> The buddha never claimed to be a God, neither did he believe in any Gods. The buddha taught that
> no kingdom truly exists other than Emptiness. All form is emptiness, all emptiness is form.

Then why do you call buddha "lord" ?

> May the blessed bodhicitta spread throughout all realms of being and bring all beings to
> enlightenment swiftly.

May you accept Christ as your personal Lord and Savior, someday, so that you too may have eternal
life and the happiness that resides only in God's Kingdom.

For this wish, you remain in my prayers, neighbor Mozz.

Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

Andrew

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

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

What is all this about?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?G5EF42A77

Is this spam?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?N69721867
 
>Hello Mozz -

Hello Andrew, I hope you are well.
>
>You are welcome to cite references that support your dissenting view.

Sure, no problem Andrew. For specifics about Indian cultural status of women at the time of
Siddhartha I refer you to an excellent book by Karen Armstrong called Buddha. It's meticulously
researched and I think you might enjoy it. http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0753813408/qid=1077556410/sr=1-7/ref=sr_1_11_7/202-
6458459-6302219 that's the Amazon link to it. Enjoy!

>> I understand that you have chosen to believe in a particular version of Christian theology.
>
>Carol has accepted Christ to be her personal Lord and Savior.

I think it only polite and proper to allow Carol to speak her own mind.

>> Unfortunately though you are also exhibiting a damaging state of imbalance and partiality when
>> making pronouncements on other equally valid and proven systems of belief.
>
>Damaging for whom?

Damaging for a fair impartial and reasoned spirit of enquiry.

>> If you look at any academic cultural and social analyses of the Indian sub-continent in the time
>> of Siddhartha, you will be pleasently surprised to find that it was one of the most civilised and
>> highly developed cultural regions in the world. Rivaling even Ancient Greece in it's cultivation
>> of civilisation. The levels of poverty were nothing like witnessed in India today, infact western
>> Europe and the Middle East was by far the inferior in terms of living standards at the time.
>> Women were treated very liberally, and especially women of noble rank. I can understand your
>> confusion, if you are judging by Middle Eastern standards of the time, where generally speaking
>> women were held in very low status - look to the Talmud to witness how women were not allowed the
>> same Temple access as men etc...The Indians were somewhat more progressive.
>
>Then you would agree that women held a lower social status then men?

Relatively speaking, women were held in much higher esteem in India at that time. Sidharttha's wife
would not have been condemned by her husband's taking leave. That was the main point of contention
between Carol and myself.

>> Forgiveness? To whom? To What? Please remember Siddhartha was not labouring under any Judeo-
>> Christian concepts of the Fall or Sin.
>
>Did he not recognize suffering of others?

The suffering Siddhartha recognised in all was root poisons of Attachment, Delusion and Ignorance to
the reality of Samsara.

>> >You cannot work past it, he found a way to suppress it and pulled others into it.
>>
>> Any good buddhist practitioner worth their salt would tell you that 'suppression' is unhealthy.
>> Siddhartha found this by initially practicing aecetic extremes. His wise discovery was the
>> doctine of the Middle Way - ie: do not 'force' or 'suppress' anything but find the balance.
>
>Did this help him overcome death?

There is in truth no death to overcome. All is Emptiness.

>> >Any educated individual who put themselves amongst the uneducated in that day would have had an
>> >enormous power over others, especially if they appeared to have been helping them. Having walked
>> >out of one palace he needed another court to govern, his other option was to go back to what had
>> >driven him out.
>>
>> So many false assumptions about Siddhartha's personal psychology. As someone who has studied
>> psychology (as I have also) you should be much more circumspect about rushing to judgement
>> without the facts.
>
>Carol has not "judged" Siddhartha in her comments.

She judged Siddhartha to have had an enormous power over others due to his education (regardless of
his spiritual qualities) and she has judged that he required some kind of 'court to govern' despite
no evidence of this at all.

>> You assumptions about Indian historical culture are wrong once again. It was the widespread
>> tradition in those days, that wandering aesetics
>> - holy men - would be supported and honoured by the society as a whole. They were viewed as
>> heroic, regardless of position or education. Infact, many were highly educated, and Siddhartha
>> would not have been seen as an exception in that regard.
>
>The "holy men" probably could have attributed much of their influence to their being highly
>educated as you have described them to be.

There were many 'educated' laymen in India at that time, yet they did not influence people in the
same way those with spiritual qualities clearly did.

>> >
>> >I have studied plenty of psychology and theology. However, that is irrelevant, he did not
>> >practice the ways of God.
>>
>> If you studied Psychology or indeed the Psychology 'of' Theology you would be able to seperate
>> the subjective belief from the objective facts. Practicing the ways of (a) God are a matter of
>> faith, not fact.
>
>Walking with Christ is a matter of obedience more than either faith or fact.

You are obedient due to your belief that Christ is real.

>Even those who would oppose Christ, acknowledge Christ either in faith or fact in their opposition.

If one 'believed' in the reality of Christ's existence and one wished to oppose Christ (Anti-Christ)
then I agree one would need belief of faith in such a being.

>> >The law of sin was written long before Jesus and the Buddha were even born. Read through the Old
>> >Testament to discover this, it's interwoven in God's ways.
>>
>> The natural law of karma was truth
>
>Jesus remains the truth.
>
>> even before Abraham and the prophets and centuries before Jesus of Nazareth was born.
>
>Jesus existed at the time of the universe's creation.
>
>> And it continues to remain the truth.
>
>Respectfully, Mozz, it never was the truth.

That is a matter of belief again. For my part I know karma is truth, and you are wrong. For your
part you 'know' Jesus is truth. Let's agree to disagree.
>
>> That is my belief as a buddhist,
>
>Believing something does not make it the truth.

Good point Andrew, your belief in Christ does not 'really' make it true.

>The truth is independent of its proponents.
>
>> you believe in the law of sin as a christian,
>
>A Christian believes in salvation through Christ.
>
>> and a communist believes in the laws of socialism leading to economic equality for all. Go
>> figure. I accept that although I feel I am right in my beliefs, others may feel otherwise - and
>> that's ok.
>
>A Christian *knows* that only through Christ, our Messiah and Savior, can we be made unblemished
>and presentable to God in heaven to receive eternal life in His Kingdom. A Christian also *knows*
>that there will be folks who feel otherwise because it has been prophesied that those whose names
>are not written in the Book of Life will be cast into the lake of fire.
>
>For it is written in Revelations 20:
>
>15If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

Another belief. You are choosing to believe what someone called John wrote on the island of Patmos
centuries after the historical Jesus lived and died. That's ok, it's your choice to interpret these
writings however you wish. I think it is a highly symbolic gnostic text that speaks in the code of
the time to other gnostic Christians about the state of the rule of Rome and the hope of it's future
demise. Many scholars and christian theologians agree with this 'less literal' interpretation.

>God conjured up Buddha. Not the other way around.

God does not exist other than in your mind.

>> Did not the Lord say to not make any graven images or idols of Himself in the Talmud? Yet do I
>> not see crucifixes in most churches or around people's necks?
>
>Is the crucifix a graven image of Christ?

What do you think the crucifix signifies?

>> Or the sign of the fish?
>
>Is the sign of the fish a graven image of Christ?

What does the fish signify?
>
>> The point early theists were making - which is the same as that of the buddha - was 'let go of
>> attachment' - 'spirit is found not in things, whether they be images, books or people'.
>
>God made this point.

Then your God and Buddha are in agreement on that point.

>> >I have no idea what you have seen or why it disgusted you. Christianity is accepting Christ, who
>> >is one with God and the Holy Spirit, as your personal saviour and then trying your best to live
>> >up to His teachings. The devil has always been around, since the beginning of time. Maybe they
>> >were showing their disgust that he'd managed to get the better of them.
>>
>> Ah...let's conjure the devil - better known as the Archetypal Judeo-Christian scape-goat... And a
>> symbol of the death of the intellect!
>
>It is prophesied in Revelations 20:
>
> 7When the thousand years are over, Satan will be released from his prison 8and will go out to
> deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth--Gog and Magog--to gather them for
> battle. In number they are like the sand on the seashore. 9They marched across the breadth of
> the earth and surrounded the camp of God's people, the city he loves. But fire came down from
> heaven and devoured them. 10And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of
> burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented
> day and night for ever and ever.

Yes, once again John prophesise' about Rome and the fall of the Empire. It's all over now. Rome
has fallen.

>> So anything that appears to be 'for God' is ok? Killing? Murder? So called 'just wars'???
>> Whatever excuse you conjure, the families left really were deprived of their sustenance by the
>> loss of their breadwinners.
>
>God will judge. Not you or I.

There is no God to judge anything.

>> It's arrogance to assume that just because one's 'belief' in God is seems like absolute truth for
>> one, that everyone else must follow or be damned.
>
>So it is prophesied.

So you have interpreted...which is not the same thing as truth at all.

>> It's called 'Fundamenalism' or 'intolerance' and it's the death of the intellect - see Al Queda
>> for an example of it in action.
>
>So you judge God to be "intolerant" of disbelief?

I do not believe in God. I see people who claim there is a God exhibit horrendous intolerance to
those who disbelieve. In psychology this is witnessed by the so called 'zealous' who try so hard to
convince others of their beliefs they become quite agitated and angry when others show resistance.
This is because they unconsciously are really doubting their beliefs and secretly wish to convince
themselves.

>> His wife and son later chose to become followers of buddha's Noble Eightfold Path to liberation
>> and it is said they both reached Enlightenment before they died. Lord Buddha taught us all the
>> way to Enlightenment and Liberation from suffering.
>
>Is it now your claim that Buddha is your lord/god?

I do not believe in God or Gods. Lord Buddha was a human being.

>> That is an awesome thing and not comparable in the least to what you have portrayed as God's
>> mission. Although I accept that you may not be the most articulate and persuasive supporter of
>> Christian theology (of which I have studied also and have great respect for).
>
>(...and turned your back on, out of respect?)

Is it respectful to stay in a religion that one does not accept as true?

>> >"If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and
>> >sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple." Luke 14:26
>>
>> By the same spirit Siddhartha was right to leave his family also, his quest was a righteous and
>> noble quest for the Truth and he also found
>> it.
>
>Glad to hear that you believe that Siddhartha found Christ (who is the Truth).

I never said that Siddhartha found Christ - there is no Christ to find. I said that Siddhartha found
the truth to the path to the cessation of suffering and enlightenment.

>> >Jesus can be with you now through the Holy Spirit, the Buddha cannot,
>>
>> We all share buddha nature. Our buddha nature (holy spirit) can be accessed by practice of
>> meditation (prayer) and the cultivation of wisdom and compassion.
>
>It sounds like you are confusing ideals with spirit.

You are mistaken.

>> >all he has left you is a way to suppress your own needs and to ignore the needs of our children.
>> >The Buddha is not and was not God, he was his own Lord in his own kingdom.
>>
>> The buddha never claimed to be a God, neither did he believe in any Gods. The buddha taught that
>> no kingdom truly exists other than Emptiness. All form is emptiness, all emptiness is form.
>
>Then why do you call buddha "lord" ?

It is a traditional term of respect.

>> May the blessed bodhicitta spread throughout all realms of being and bring all beings to
>> enlightenment swiftly.
>
>
>May you accept Christ as your personal Lord and Savior, someday, so that you too may have eternal
>life and the happiness that resides only in God's Kingdom.

There is no God. Your salvation lies within your own mind. Seek the Noble Eightfold Path to the
cessation of suffering.
>
>For this wish, you remain in my prayers, neighbor Mozz.

You remain in my prayers also Andrew.
>
>
>Servant to the humblest person in the universe,
>
>Andrew

Respectfully, Mozz.
 
Mozz wrote:

> >Hello Mozz -
>
> Hello Andrew, I hope you are well.

God keeps me well. I trust that He has done the same for you.

>
> >
> >You are welcome to cite references that support your dissenting view.
>
> Sure, no problem Andrew. For specifics about Indian cultural status of women at the time of
> Siddhartha I refer you to an excellent book by Karen Armstrong called Buddha. It's meticulously
> researched and I think you might enjoy it. http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0753813408/qid=1077556410/sr=1-7/ref=sr_1_11_7/202-
> 6458459-6302219 that's the Amazon link to it. Enjoy!
>

How about something on-line to facilitate this discussion?

>
> >> I understand that you have chosen to believe in a particular version of Christian theology.
> >
> >Carol has accepted Christ to be her personal Lord and Savior.
>
> I think it only polite and proper to allow Carol to speak her own mind.
>

I am not keeping her from doing so.

>
> >> Unfortunately though you are also exhibiting a damaging state of imbalance and partiality when
> >> making pronouncements on other equally valid and proven systems of belief.
> >
> >Damaging for whom?
>
> Damaging for a fair impartial and reasoned spirit of enquiry.
>

Why should we be concerned about this non-entity?

>
> >> If you look at any academic cultural and social analyses of the Indian sub-continent in the
> >> time of Siddhartha, you will be pleasently surprised to find that it was one of the most
> >> civilised and highly developed cultural regions in the world. Rivaling even Ancient Greece in
> >> it's cultivation of civilisation. The levels of poverty were nothing like witnessed in India
> >> today, infact western Europe and the Middle East was by far the inferior in terms of living
> >> standards at the time. Women were treated very liberally, and especially women of noble rank. I
> >> can understand your confusion, if you are judging by Middle Eastern standards of the time,
> >> where generally speaking women were held in very low status - look to the Talmud to witness how
> >> women were not allowed the same Temple access as men etc...The Indians were somewhat more
> >> progressive.
> >
> >Then you would agree that women held a lower social status then men?
>
> Relatively speaking, women were held in much higher esteem in India at that time. Sidharttha's
> wife would not have been condemned by her husband's taking leave.

I suspect this did not advance her social status but probably lowered it even if there was not
outright condemnation.

> That was the main point of contention between Carol and myself.
>

Carol did not write that outright condemnation occurred.

>
> >> Forgiveness? To whom? To What? Please remember Siddhartha was not labouring under any Judeo-
> >> Christian concepts of the Fall or Sin.
> >
> >Did he not recognize suffering of others?
>
> The suffering Siddhartha recognised in all was root poisons of Attachment, Delusion and Ignorance
> to the reality of Samsara.
>

Sin is poison.

>
> >> >You cannot work past it, he found a way to suppress it and pulled others into it.
> >>
> >> Any good buddhist practitioner worth their salt would tell you that 'suppression' is unhealthy.
> >> Siddhartha found this by initially practicing aecetic extremes. His wise discovery was the
> >> doctine of the Middle Way - ie: do not 'force' or 'suppress' anything but find the balance.
> >
> >Did this help him overcome death?
>
> There is in truth no death to overcome. All is Emptiness.
>

Such is denial.

>
> >> >Any educated individual who put themselves amongst the uneducated in that day would have had
> >> >an enormous power over others, especially if they appeared to have been helping them. Having
> >> >walked out of one palace he needed another court to govern, his other option was to go back to
> >> >what had driven him out.
> >>
> >> So many false assumptions about Siddhartha's personal psychology. As someone who has studied
> >> psychology (as I have also) you should be much more circumspect about rushing to judgement
> >> without the facts.
> >
> >Carol has not "judged" Siddhartha in her comments.
>
> She judged Siddhartha to have had an enormous power over others due to his education (regardless
> of his spiritual qualities)

This would not be judgment.

> and she has judged that he required some kind of 'court to govern' despite no evidence of
> this at all.
>

Ditto.

>
> >> You assumptions about Indian historical culture are wrong once again. It was the widespread
> >> tradition in those days, that wandering aesetics
> >> - holy men - would be supported and honoured by the society as a whole. They were viewed as
> >> heroic, regardless of position or education. Infact, many were highly educated, and
> >> Siddhartha would not have been seen as an exception in that regard.
> >
> >The "holy men" probably could have attributed much of their influence to their being highly
> >educated as you have described them to be.
>
> There were many 'educated' laymen in India at that time, yet they did not influence people in the
> same way those with spiritual qualities clearly did.

Those with "spiritual qualities" were probably more highly educated (after all, they devoted
themselves to lifelong study whereas laymen did not)

>
>
> >> >
> >> >I have studied plenty of psychology and theology. However, that is irrelevant, he did not
> >> >practice the ways of God.
> >>
> >> If you studied Psychology or indeed the Psychology 'of' Theology you would be able to seperate
> >> the subjective belief from the objective facts. Practicing the ways of (a) God are a matter of
> >> faith, not fact.
> >
> >Walking with Christ is a matter of obedience more than either faith or fact.
>
> You are obedient due to your belief that Christ is real.
>

SM. believes that Christ is real.... do you see SM. walking with Christ?

>
> >Even those who would oppose Christ, acknowledge Christ either in faith or fact in their
> >opposition.
>
> If one 'believed' in the reality of Christ's existence and one wished to oppose Christ (Anti-
> Christ) then I agree one would need belief of faith in such a being.
>

Glad your eyes are open.

>
> >> >The law of sin was written long before Jesus and the Buddha were even born. Read through the
> >> >Old Testament to discover this, it's interwoven in God's ways.
> >>
> >> The natural law of karma was truth
> >
> >Jesus remains the truth.
> >
> >> even before Abraham and the prophets and centuries before Jesus of Nazareth was born.
> >
> >Jesus existed at the time of the universe's creation.
> >
> >> And it continues to remain the truth.
> >
> >Respectfully, Mozz, it never was the truth.
>
> That is a matter of belief again. For my part I know karma is truth, and you are wrong. For your
> part you 'know' Jesus is truth. Let's agree to disagree.

You have free will.

>
> >
> >> That is my belief as a buddhist,
> >
> >Believing something does not make it the truth.
>
> Good point Andrew, your belief in Christ does not 'really' make it true.
>

Correct.

Think carefully about these verifiable facts:

(1) Jesus Christ existed as a man.

(2) Jesus Christ said as a man that He is the "Truth, the Way, and the Life" and the Son of God.

(3) His followers have testified that He is the Messiah to their deaths.

(4) Despite (3), here we are, far greater in number and in strength.

(5) All who have challenged these facts, here at SMC and elsewhere, have fallen.

These facts will stand irrespective of my belief that Christ is my personal Lord and Savior or your
disbelief of it.

>
> >The truth is independent of its proponents.
> >
> >> you believe in the law of sin as a christian,
> >
> >A Christian believes in salvation through Christ.
> >
> >> and a communist believes in the laws of socialism leading to economic equality for all. Go
> >> figure. I accept that although I feel I am right in my beliefs, others may feel otherwise - and
> >> that's ok.
> >
> >A Christian *knows* that only through Christ, our Messiah and Savior, can we be made unblemished
> >and presentable to God in heaven to receive eternal life in His Kingdom. A Christian also *knows*
> >that there will be folks who feel otherwise because it has been prophesied that those whose names
> >are not written in the Book of Life will be cast into the lake of fire.
> >
> >For it is written in Revelations 20:
> >
> >15If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake
> >of fire.
>
> Another belief.

A prophecy.

> You are choosing to believe what someone called John wrote on the island of Patmos centuries after
> the historical Jesus lived and died.

I am simply quoting the prophesy.

> That's ok, it's your choice to interpret these writings however you wish. I think it is a highly
> symbolic gnostic text that speaks in the code of the time to other gnostic Christians about the
> state of the rule of Rome and the hope of it's future demise. Many scholars and christian
> theologians agree with this 'less literal' interpretation.
>

We shall see.

>
> >God conjured up Buddha. Not the other way around.
>
> God does not exist other than in your mind.
>

That would be your hope.

>
> >> Did not the Lord say to not make any graven images or idols of Himself in the Talmud? Yet do I
> >> not see crucifixes in most churches or around people's necks?
> >
> >Is the crucifix a graven image of Christ?
>
> What do you think the crucifix signifies?
>

It reminds us of God's sacrifice.

>
> >> Or the sign of the fish?
> >
> >Is the sign of the fish a graven image of Christ?
>
> What does the fish signify?
>

It allows Christians to recognize each other.

> >
> >> The point early theists were making - which is the same as that of the buddha - was 'let go of
> >> attachment' - 'spirit is found not in things, whether they be images, books or people'.
> >
> >God made this point.
>
> Then your God and Buddha are in agreement on that point.
>

No surprise... God made Buddha.

>
> >> >I have no idea what you have seen or why it disgusted you. Christianity is accepting Christ,
> >> >who is one with God and the Holy Spirit, as your personal saviour and then trying your best to
> >> >live up to His teachings. The devil has always been around, since the beginning of time. Maybe
> >> >they were showing their disgust that he'd managed to get the better of them.
> >>
> >> Ah...let's conjure the devil - better known as the Archetypal Judeo-Christian scape-goat... And
> >> a symbol of the death of the intellect!
> >
> >It is prophesied in Revelations 20:
> >
> > 7When the thousand years are over, Satan will be released from his prison 8and will go out
> > to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth--Gog and Magog--to gather them for
> > battle. In number they are like the sand on the seashore. 9They marched across the breadth
> > of the earth and surrounded the camp of God's people, the city he loves. But fire came down
> > from heaven and devoured them. 10And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake
> > of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be
> > tormented day and night for ever and ever.
>
> Yes, once again John prophesise' about Rome and the fall of the Empire. It's all over now. Rome
> has fallen.
>

Rome did not tempt Christ with bread when He was hungry from a 40 day fast. Satan did.

>
> >> So anything that appears to be 'for God' is ok? Killing? Murder? So called 'just wars'???
> >> Whatever excuse you conjure, the families left really were deprived of their sustenance by the
> >> loss of their breadwinners.
> >
> >God will judge. Not you or I.
>
> There is no God to judge anything.
>

That would be your hope.

>
> >> It's arrogance to assume that just because one's 'belief' in God is seems like absolute truth
> >> for one, that everyone else must follow or be damned.
> >
> >So it is prophesied.
>
> So you have interpreted...which is not the same thing as truth at all.

Christ is the truth.

>
>
> >> It's called 'Fundamenalism' or 'intolerance' and it's the death of the intellect - see Al Queda
> >> for an example of it in action.
> >
> >So you judge God to be "intolerant" of disbelief?
>
> I do not believe in God.

That is your choice. You have free will.

> I see people who claim there is a God exhibit horrendous intolerance to those who disbelieve.

That is their choice. They also have free will.

> In psychology this is witnessed by the so called 'zealous' who try so hard to convince others of
> their beliefs they become quite agitated and angry when others show resistance.

SM. and BP would be good case studies for you.

> This is because they unconsciously are really doubting their beliefs and secretly wish to convince
> themselves.
>

Is that how you would explain the fact that I am neither agitated nor angry with you?

(i.e. I am secure in my beliefs and have no need to convince either myself or you)

>
> >> His wife and son later chose to become followers of buddha's Noble Eightfold Path to liberation
> >> and it is said they both reached Enlightenment before they died. Lord Buddha taught us all the
> >> way to Enlightenment and Liberation from suffering.
> >
> >Is it now your claim that Buddha is your lord/god?
>
> I do not believe in God or Gods. Lord Buddha was a human being.
>

The why the title "Lord" ?

>
> >> That is an awesome thing and not comparable in the least to what you have portrayed as God's
> >> mission. Although I accept that you may not be the most articulate and persuasive supporter of
> >> Christian theology (of which I have studied also and have great respect for).
> >
> >(...and turned your back on, out of respect?)
>
> Is it respectful to stay in a religion that one does not accept as true?
>

Yes. Paying lip service to anyone or anything is a sign of respect especially when there is
disagreement.

The servant that says "Yes, Sir" to his master when he is thinking "No, I don't want to do this" is
being respectful.

>
> >> >"If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers
> >> >and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple." Luke 14:26
> >>
> >> By the same spirit Siddhartha was right to leave his family also, his quest was a righteous and
> >> noble quest for the Truth and he also found
> >> it.
> >
> >Glad to hear that you believe that Siddhartha found Christ (who is the Truth).
>
> I never said that Siddhartha found Christ - there is no Christ to find. I said that Siddhartha
> found the truth to the path to the cessation of suffering and enlightenment.
>

The latter is Christ, neighbor.

>
> >> >Jesus can be with you now through the Holy Spirit, the Buddha cannot,
> >>
> >> We all share buddha nature. Our buddha nature (holy spirit) can be accessed by practice of
> >> meditation (prayer) and the cultivation of wisdom and compassion.
> >
> >It sounds like you are confusing ideals with spirit.
>
> You are mistaken.
>

Still seems that way to me.

>
> >> >all he has left you is a way to suppress your own needs and to ignore the needs of our
> >> >children. The Buddha is not and was not God, he was his own Lord in his own kingdom.
> >>
> >> The buddha never claimed to be a God, neither did he believe in any Gods. The buddha taught
> >> that no kingdom truly exists other than Emptiness. All form is emptiness, all emptiness is
> >> form.
> >
> >Then why do you call buddha "lord" ?
>
> It is a traditional term of respect.
>

...and reverence. You call buddha "lord" and I call Jesus "Lord."

>
> >> May the blessed bodhicitta spread throughout all realms of being and bring all beings to
> >> enlightenment swiftly.
> >
> >
> >May you accept Christ as your personal Lord and Savior, someday, so that you too may have eternal
> >life and the happiness that resides only in God's Kingdom.
>
> There is no God.

That would be your hope.

> Your salvation lies within your own mind.

Only if you were God, but you are not. It is written that Satan "sold" the idea of disobedience to
Adam and Eve with the lie that they would have God's power. One can't help but wonder if buddha
bought into this idea.

> Seek the Noble Eightfold Path to the cessation of suffering.
>

Have you stopped suffering, Mozz?

> >
> >For this wish, you remain in my prayers, neighbor Mozz.
>
> You remain in my prayers also Andrew.
>

Who are you praying to, Mozz?

Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

Andrew

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

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

What is all this about?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?T13943F77

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

> Mozz wrote:
>
>>>>Unfortunately though you are also exhibiting a damaging state of imbalance and partiality when
>>>>making pronouncements on other equally valid and proven systems of belief.

Chung wrote:
>>>Damaging for whom?

Mozz wrote
>>Damaging for a fair impartial and reasoned spirit of enquiry.

Chung wrote:
>>Why should we be concerned about this non-entity?

And there it is. "Non-entity," indeed. Never heard of the scientific method, I guess.

Bob
 
Hello Andrew,

>> >You are welcome to cite references that support your dissenting view.
>>
>> Sure, no problem Andrew. For specifics about Indian cultural status of women at the time of
>> Siddhartha I refer you to an excellent book by Karen Armstrong called Buddha. It's meticulously
>> researched and I think you might enjoy it. http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0753813408/qid=1077556410/sr=1-7/ref=sr_1_11_7/202-
>> 6458459-6302219 that's the Amazon link to it. Enjoy!
>>
>
>How about something on-line to facilitate this discussion?

Most of my research is from good old fashioned books I'm sorry to say. If I come across any relevant
online work I'll flag it up for you though.

>> >> Unfortunately though you are also exhibiting a damaging state of imbalance and partiality when
>> >> making pronouncements on other equally valid and proven systems of belief.
>> >
>> >Damaging for whom?
>>
>> Damaging for a fair impartial and reasoned spirit of enquiry.
>>
>
>Why should we be concerned about this non-entity?

Surely you are not asking me why we should be concerned about fairness, impartiality and reason?

>> Relatively speaking, women were held in much higher esteem in India at that time. Sidharttha's
>> wife would not have been condemned by her husband's taking leave.
>
>I suspect this did not advance her social status but probably lowered it even if there was not
>outright condemnation.

Your suspicions are unfounded by the facts. In India at that time, it was relatively common for
husbands and fathers to choose to pursue the spiritual path. Generally this was seen as a heroic and
brave endeavour taken by the individual for the benefit of all.

>> The suffering Siddhartha recognised in all was root poisons of Attachment, Delusion and Ignorance
>> to the reality of Samsara.
>>
>
>Sin is poison.

I understand that a widely held definition of sin is 'transgression and thus seperation from God' -
If so, the concept of sin itself upholds a mistaken view of reality as a belief in a creator deity
is a delusion.

>> There is in truth no death to overcome. All is Emptiness.
>>
>
>Such is denial.

Denial is to choose to believe in the fantasy of a creator deity.

>Those with "spiritual qualities" were probably more highly educated (after all, they devoted
>themselves to lifelong study whereas laymen did not)

Another mistaken assumption. Most aescetics began to study in later life. Also many laymen,
artisans and tradesmen devoted themselves to their particular paths, whether that be building,
decoration or medicine.

>SM. believes that Christ is real.... do you see SM. walking with Christ?

No one is walking with Christ, as in reality Christ does not exist other than as a set of
projections built on interpretations picked up from the culture and environment around you over
the years.

>> If one 'believed' in the reality of Christ's existence and one wished to oppose Christ (Anti-
>> Christ) then I agree one would need belief of faith in such a being.
>>
>
>Glad your eyes are open.

They remain open.

>Think carefully about these verifiable facts:

ok.

>(1) Jesus Christ existed as a man.

I am prepared to accept that this was indeed likely.

>(2) Jesus Christ said as a man that He is the "Truth, the Way, and the Life" and the Son of God.

The most we can say with accuracy here is that we are implored to accept that Jesus once said these
things by the writers of the gospels.

>(3) His followers have testified that He is the Messiah to their deaths.

This does not mean Jesus was in fact the messiah. It merely shows the strength of belief held by
his followers. In the very same way look to the Palestinian suicide-bombers of today or the Islamic
Jihad members, or indeed the Al Queda operatives who also exhibit the same zeal in the name of
their god.

>(4) Despite (3), here we are, far greater in number and in strength.

For everything there is a season. Things change. Civilisations rise, civilisations fall....

>(5) All who have challenged these facts, here at SMC and elsewhere, have fallen.

And yet I am still standing.

>These facts will stand irrespective of my belief that Christ is my personal Lord and Savior or your
>disbelief of it.

You have merely presented me with typical fundamentalist Christian dogma, not verifiable facts.

>> >Is the crucifix a graven image of Christ?
>>
>> What do you think the crucifix signifies?

>It reminds us of God's sacrifice.

Ah, it fulfils the same function as the image of a Golden Calf once reminded the Israelites of Mamon
on the slopes of Mount Sinai?

>> >> The point early theists were making - which is the same as that of the buddha - was 'let go of
>> >> attachment' - 'spirit is found not in things, whether they be images, books or people'.
>> >
>> >God made this point.
>>
>> Then your God and Buddha are in agreement on that point.

>No surprise... God made Buddha.

And yet your God also made athiests, muslims, jews, hindus, communists etc etc....is it also no
surprise their beliefs are not in accordance with your God?

>> In psychology this is witnessed by the so called 'zealous' who try so hard to convince others of
>> their beliefs they become quite agitated and angry when others show resistance.
>
>SM. and BP would be good case studies for you.
>
>> This is because they unconsciously are really doubting their beliefs and secretly wish to
>> convince themselves.
>>
>
>Is that how you would explain the fact that I am neither agitated nor angry with you?
>(i.e. I am secure in my beliefs and have no need to convince either myself or you)

Interesting that you assume I refer to you.

And yet your posts betray you. You still strive to convince me that you are right and I am wrong
(all the while unconsciously trying to reinforce your own beliefs - see your 5 points above)

>Yes. Paying lip service to anyone or anything is a sign of respect especially when there is
>disagreement. The servant that says "Yes, Sir" to his master when he is thinking "No, I don't want
>to do this" is being respectful.

This is nonsense. It is not respectful to say one thing and yet mean another. It is quite
the opposite.

>> I never said that Siddhartha found Christ - there is no Christ to find. I said that Siddhartha
>> found the truth to the path to the cessation of suffering and enlightenment.
>>
>
>The latter is Christ, neighbor.

Did Christ teach the Four Noble Truths that lead to the practice of the Eightfold Path to
liberation, that lead to the perfection of wisdom that leads to nirvana?

>> >Then why do you call buddha "lord" ?
>>
>> It is a traditional term of respect.

>...and reverence. You call buddha "lord" and I call Jesus "Lord."

I revere the teachings of Lord Buddha.

>> Your salvation lies within your own mind.
>
>Only if you were God, but you are not. It is written that Satan "sold" the idea of disobedience to
>Adam and Eve with the lie that they would have God's power. One can't help but wonder if buddha
>bought into this idea.

You cannot seriously be saying that you believe in the literal existence of Adam and Eve?

>> Seek the Noble Eightfold Path to the cessation of suffering.
>>
>
>Have you stopped suffering, Mozz?

I have.

>> >For this wish, you remain in my prayers, neighbor Mozz.
>>
>> You remain in my prayers also Andrew.
>>
>
>Who are you praying to, Mozz?

I pray to my buddha nature.

Respectfully,

Mozz
 
Mozz wrote:

> Hello Andrew,
>
> >> >You are welcome to cite references that support your dissenting view.
> >>
> >> Sure, no problem Andrew. For specifics about Indian cultural status of women at the time of
> >> Siddhartha I refer you to an excellent book by Karen Armstrong called Buddha. It's meticulously
> >> researched and I think you might enjoy it. http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0753813408/qid=1077556410/sr=1-7/ref=sr_1_11_7/202-
> >> 6458459-6302219 that's the Amazon link to it. Enjoy!
> >>
> >
> >How about something on-line to facilitate this discussion?
>
> Most of my research is from good old fashioned books I'm sorry to say. If I come across any
> relevant online work I'll flag it up for you though.
>

I am surprised you have not returned better prepared.

>
> >> >> Unfortunately though you are also exhibiting a damaging state of imbalance and partiality
> >> >> when making pronouncements on other equally valid and proven systems of belief.
> >> >
> >> >Damaging for whom?
> >>
> >> Damaging for a fair impartial and reasoned spirit of enquiry.
> >>
> >
> >Why should we be concerned about this non-entity?
>
> Surely you are not asking me why we should be concerned about fairness, impartiality and reason?
>

These things will take care of themselves. They do not need either your protection or nurturing.

>
> >> Relatively speaking, women were held in much higher esteem in India at that time. Sidharttha's
> >> wife would not have been condemned by her husband's taking leave.
> >
> >I suspect this did not advance her social status but probably lowered it even if there was not
> >outright condemnation.
>
> Your suspicions are unfounded by the facts. In India at that time, it was relatively common for
> husbands and fathers to choose to pursue the spiritual path. Generally this was seen as a heroic
> and brave endeavour taken by the individual for the benefit of all.
>

Go ahead and cite something on-line that supports your assertion that and Indian woman advanced in
social status if her husband chose to pursue a spiritual path.

>
> >> The suffering Siddhartha recognised in all was root poisons of Attachment, Delusion and
> >> Ignorance to the reality of Samsara.
> >>
> >
> >Sin is poison.
>
> I understand that a widely held definition of sin is 'transgression and thus seperation from God'
> - If so, the concept of sin itself upholds a mistaken view of reality as a belief in a creator
> deity is a delusion.
>

Folks recognize sin even when they do not believe in God.

>
> >> There is in truth no death to overcome. All is Emptiness.
> >>
> >
> >Such is denial.
>
> Denial is to choose to believe in the fantasy of a creator deity.
>

Denial is to disbelieve rather than to believe.

>
> >Those with "spiritual qualities" were probably more highly educated (after all, they devoted
> >themselves to lifelong study whereas laymen did not)
>
> Another mistaken assumption. Most aescetics began to study in later life. Also many laymen,
> artisans and tradesmen devoted themselves to their particular paths, whether that be building,
> decoration or medicine.

Plying a trade is not the same as studying/thinking.

>
>
> >SM. believes that Christ is real.... do you see SM. walking with Christ?
>
> No one is walking with Christ,

Many are.

> as in reality Christ does not exist

According to buddha?

>
> other than as a set of projections built on interpretations picked up from the culture and
> environment around you over the years.
>

Have you learned this from buddha?

>
> >> If one 'believed' in the reality of Christ's existence and one wished to oppose Christ (Anti-
> >> Christ) then I agree one would need belief of faith in such a being.
> >>
> >
> >Glad your eyes are open.
>
> They remain open.
>
> >Think carefully about these verifiable facts:
>
> ok.
>
> >(1) Jesus Christ existed as a man.
>
> I am prepared to accept that this was indeed likely.
>
> >(2) Jesus Christ said as a man that He is the "Truth, the Way, and the Life" and the Son of God.
>
> The most we can say with accuracy here is that we are implored to accept that Jesus once said
> these things by the writers of the gospels.
>

It is so written in the Holy Bible. There are no evidence to support any assertions that He did not
say what has been attributed to Him in the Bible.

>
> >(3) His followers have testified that He is the Messiah to their deaths.
>
> This does not mean Jesus was in fact the messiah. It merely shows the strength of belief held by
> his followers. In the very same way look to the Palestinian suicide-bombers of today or the
> Islamic Jihad members, or indeed the Al Queda operatives who also exhibit the same zeal in the
> name of their god.

These folks are dead. We live.

>
>
> >(4) Despite (3), here we are, far greater in number and in strength.
>
> For everything there is a season. Things change. Civilisations rise, civilisations fall....

Christianity is not a civilization. There are followers of Christ in every nation on this planet.

>
>
> >(5) All who have challenged these facts, here at SMC and elsewhere, have fallen.
>
> And yet I am still standing.
>

You are treading water. Your raft has long been sunk.

>
> >These facts will stand irrespective of my belief that Christ is my personal Lord and Savior or
> >your disbelief of it.
>
> You have merely presented me with typical fundamentalist Christian dogma, not verifiable facts.
>

1-5 above are verifiable facts and not dogma.

>
> >> >Is the crucifix a graven image of Christ?
> >>
> >> What do you think the crucifix signifies?
>
> >It reminds us of God's sacrifice.
>
> Ah, it fulfils the same function as the image of a Golden Calf once reminded the Israelites of
> Mamon on the slopes of Mount Sinai?
>

No.

>
> >> >> The point early theists were making - which is the same as that of the buddha - was 'let go
> >> >> of attachment' - 'spirit is found not in things, whether they be images, books or people'.
> >> >
> >> >God made this point.
> >>
> >> Then your God and Buddha are in agreement on that point.
>
> >No surprise... God made Buddha.
>
> And yet your God also made athiests, muslims, jews, hindus, communists etc etc....is it also no
> surprise their beliefs are not in accordance with your God?

Yes. It is no surprise that they, like buddha, got lost.

God also gave them free will to choose the wayward path.

>
>
> >> In psychology this is witnessed by the so called 'zealous' who try so hard to convince others
> >> of their beliefs they become quite agitated and angry when others show resistance.
> >
> >SM. and BP would be good case studies for you.
> >
> >> This is because they unconsciously are really doubting their beliefs and secretly wish to
> >> convince themselves.
> >>
> >
> >Is that how you would explain the fact that I am neither agitated nor angry with you?
> >(i.e. I am secure in my beliefs and have no need to convince either myself or you)
>
> Interesting that you assume I refer to you.
>

I didn't.

>
> And yet your posts betray you.

My posts serve to glorify God.

> You still strive to convince me that you are right and I am wrong

Simply giving you information.

> (all the while unconsciously trying to reinforce your own beliefs - see your 5 points above)
>

If I were insecure in my beliefs, why am I not acting as you would expect for someone who is
insecure is his/her beliefs?

Where is the "agitation" and the "anger" ?

>
> >Yes. Paying lip service to anyone or anything is a sign of respect especially when there is
> >disagreement. The servant that says "Yes, Sir" to his master when he is thinking "No, I don't
> >want to do this" is being respectful.
>
> This is nonsense.

It is the truth.

> It is not respectful to say one thing and yet mean another.

In the relationship between a servant and his/her master, it is respectful for the servant to abide
by the master's wishes even if there is disagreement.

> It is quite the opposite.
>

Not for our relationship with God.

>
> >> I never said that Siddhartha found Christ - there is no Christ to find. I said that Siddhartha
> >> found the truth to the path to the cessation of suffering and enlightenment.
> >>
> >
> >The latter is Christ, neighbor.
>
> Did Christ teach the Four Noble Truths that lead to the practice of the Eightfold Path to
> liberation, that lead to the perfection of wisdom that leads to nirvana?
>

Christ is the path to the cessation of suffering and the whole of enlightenment.

>
> >> >Then why do you call buddha "lord" ?
> >>
> >> It is a traditional term of respect.
>
> >...and reverence. You call buddha "lord" and I call Jesus "Lord."
>
> I revere the teachings of Lord Buddha.
>

As so you worship him as I revere the teachings of Lord Christ and worship Him.

>
> >> Your salvation lies within your own mind.
> >
> >Only if you were God, but you are not. It is written that Satan "sold" the idea of disobedience
> >to Adam and Eve with the lie that they would have God's power. One can't help but wonder if
> >buddha bought into this idea.
>
> You cannot seriously be saying that you believe in the literal existence of Adam and Eve?
>

Yes. There is actually scientific evidence at the genetic level for the existence of Eve.

>
> >> Seek the Noble Eightfold Path to the cessation of suffering.
> >>
> >
> >Have you stopped suffering, Mozz?
>
> I have.
>

Then what are you looking for when you come here?

Why do you feel the need to defend aspects of Siddhartha's life?

>
> >> >For this wish, you remain in my prayers, neighbor Mozz.
> >>
> >> You remain in my prayers also Andrew.
> >>
> >
> >Who are you praying to, Mozz?
>
> I pray to my buddha nature.
>

It remains my choice to pray to God, in Christ's name, on your behalf.

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/?T13943F77

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

> Mozz wrote:
>=20
>>Hello Andrew,
>
>>>>>You are welcome to cite references that support your dissenting view=
=2E
>>>>
>>>>Sure, no problem Andrew. For specifics about Indian cultural status o=
f
>>>>women at the time of Siddhartha I refer you to an excellent book by Karen Armstrong called
>>>>Buddha. It's meticulously researched and I think you might enjoy it.
>>>>http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0753813408/qid=3D1077556410/=
sr=3D1-7/ref=3Dsr_1_11_7/202-6458459-6302219
>>>>that's the Amazon link to it. Enjoy!
>>>>
>>>How about something on-line to facilitate this discussion?
>>
>>Most of my research is from good old fashioned books I'm sorry to say. If I come across any
>>relevant online work I'll flag it up for you though.
>>
> I am surprised you have not returned better prepared.

Bwahahahahaha...

Chung seems unable to contemplate the notion of actually doing=20 research away from his computer.
Mozz is very well prepared, indeed.=20 It's the lazy Chung who looks the fool here. "Oh, no. Not a
book. I=20 can't look at books..."

The sheer arrogance of Chung to say he wants information and then to=20 dictate the form it should
take is just a hoot.

>>>>>>Unfortunately though you are also exhibiting a damaging state of imbalance and partiality when
>>>>>>making pronouncements on other equall=
y
>>>>>>valid and proven systems of belief.
>>>>>
>>>>>Damaging for whom?
>>>>
>>>>Damaging for a fair impartial and reasoned spirit of enquiry.
>>>>
>>>Why should we be concerned about this non-entity?
>>
>>Surely you are not asking me why we should be concerned about fairness, impartiality and reason?
>>
> These things will take care of themselves. They do not need either you=
r protection or nurturing.

Astonishing. Simply astonishing. Chung thinks that fairness,=20 impartiality and reason just
*happen* - no thinking necessary, no=20 rules for the discourse necessary. The fact that we are a
designed to=20 be a nation of laws means that everybody with an IQ greater than a=20 grasshopper's
has seen the need for these elements to be present or=20 we're no better than animals.

It's because Chung feels no compunction about behaving in his savage=20 and malicious way that he
doesn't want restriction on his evil. To=20 him, anyone with even a modicum of civility is free meat
for his=20 abuse. And it's civility that's the product of fairness, impartiality=20 and reason.

> Go ahead and cite something on-line that supports your assertion that a=
nd Indian woman advanced in social status if
> her husband chose to pursue a spiritual path.

<LOL> And make damn sure that it's online of Chung will call you a=20 liar or something because he
can't see it on his screen. <LOL>

> Folks recognize sin even when they do not believe in God.

And they recognize fraud, quackery, charlatanry and malice, too.

>>>Think carefully about these verifiable facts:

Unfortunately, not one of the five is a *verifiable* fact. Jesus is=20 real to those of us who
believe. To everyone else, he isn't. There are=20 no direct documentary pieces of evidence.

>>>(1) Jesus Christ existed as a man.
>>
>>I am prepared to accept that this was indeed likely.

Likely is as far as the *proof* goes.

>>>(2) Jesus Christ said as a man that He is the "Truth, the Way, and the=
Life" and the Son of God.
>>
>>The most we can say with accuracy here is that we are implored to accept that Jesus once said
>>these things by the writers of the gospels.

Jesus didn't write any of the new testament himself. It's all=20 second-hand or third hand
information. There's no *proof* he said any=20 of the things attributed to him.

> It is so written in the Holy Bible. There are no evidence to support a=
ny assertions that He did not say what has
> been attributed to Him in the Bible.

Hilarious. As the slow-witted Chung has heard before and still seems=20 not to get, "Absence of
evidence is not evidence of absence." There's=20 no other evidence that Jesus said anything at all
beyond the bible and=20 the apocrypha, and that's not evidence, either.

>>>(3) His followers have testified that He is the Messiah to their death=
s.
>>
>>This does not mean Jesus was in fact the messiah. It merely shows the strength of belief held by
>>his followers. In the very same way look to the Palestinian suicide-bombers of today or the
>>Islamic Jihad members, or indeed the Al Queda operatives who also exhibit the same zeal in the
>>name of their god.
>=20
> These folks are dead. We live.

And the writers of the gospel are dead, too, but the point here is=20 that people swearing and
testifying are merely people swearing and=20 testifying. It doesn't make it truth, it just makes it
their stories.

>>>(4) Despite (3), here we are, far greater in number and in strength.
>>
>>For everything there is a season. Things change. Civilisations rise, civilisations fall....
>=20
> Christianity is not a civilization. There are followers of Christ in e=
very nation on this planet.

Yes, there are. But do read Ecclesiastes. It talks about the=20 inevitable changes of the world.

>>>(5) All who have challenged these facts, here at SMC and elsewhere, ha=
ve fallen.
>>
>>And yet I am still standing.
>=20
> You are treading water. Your raft has long been sunk.

Chung has nothing to say, so he says something nasty. Why am I not=20 surprised?

>>>These facts will stand irrespective of my belief that Christ is my per=
sonal Lord and Savior or your disbelief
>>>of it.
>>
>>You have merely presented me with typical fundamentalist Christian dogma, not verifiable facts.
>>
> 1-5 above are verifiable facts and not dogma.

Not facts and not dogma, either. Not to anyone normal. They're the=20 wacko fancies of Chung the
cultist who needs to believe that the=20 extreme is reasonable. That absolute is rational. That
any=20 pronouncement Chung makes is de facto "truthful" because he's making=20
sa. The pinnacle of arrogance...

>>And yet your God also made athiests, muslims, jews, hindus, communists etc etc....is it also no
>>surprise their beliefs are not in accordance with your God?
>=20
> Yes. It is no surprise that they, like buddha, got lost.
>=20
> God also gave them free will to choose the wayward path.

Like this...? free will theism -- Generally, the view within Christian theology=20 affirming that
agents created by God are endowed with the ability and=20 inclination to make choices, commitments,
decisions, etc. without=20 being bound to do so by God. Specifically, the view within the general=20
view that God grants such freedom and consequently God can only know=20 what is present or past, but
not what is conditionally future.

Or maybe like this...? "... and I will go as far as Martin Luther, in that strong assertion=20 of
his, where he says, =91If any man doth ascribe of salvation, even the =

very least, to the free will of man, he knoweth nothing of grace, and=20 he hath not learnt Jesus
Christ aright.=92 It may seem a harsh=20 sentiment; but he who in his soul believes that man does of
his own=20 free will turn to God, cannot have been taught of God, for that is one=20 of the first
principles taught us when God begins with us, that we=20 have neither will nor power, but that He
gives both; that He is =91Alpha =

and Omega=92 in the salvation of men." Charles H. Spurgeon from the sermon "Free Will A Slave"
(1855)=20 referring to Luther's book The Bondage of the Will

>>>Yes. Paying lip service to anyone or anything is a sign of respect es=
pecially when there is disagreement.
>>>The servant that says "Yes, Sir" to his master when he is thinking "No=
, I don't want to do this" is being
>>>respectful.
>>
>>This is nonsense.
>=20
> It is the truth.
>=20
>>It is not respectful to say one thing and yet mean another.
>=20
> In the relationship between a servant and his/her master, it is respect=
ful for the servant to abide by the master's
> wishes even if there is disagreement.
>=20
>>It is quite the opposite.
>>
> Not for our relationship with God.

Really? Chung thinks it's wise to lie to God like he does to humans?

>>>>>Then why do you call buddha "lord" ?
>>>>
>>>>It is a traditional term of respect.
>>
>>>...and reverence. You call buddha "lord" and I call Jesus "Lord."
>>
>>I revere the teachings of Lord Buddha.
>>
> As so you worship him as I revere the teachings of Lord Christ and wors=
hip Him.

Even Chung should be able to see the differences between revering=20 teachings and revering a
person. He seems unable to see the difference=20 between ideas and flesh. Chung has apparently never
heard of the word=20 "Lord" used as anything but a religious term. Never heard of Lord=20 Harlech?
Never heard of "Lord of the Dance?" Never heard of "Lord of=20 the Rings?" Poor obtuse Chung...

BURKE'S PEERAGE & GENTRY'S A TO Z GUIDE "lord: a general term denoting a dignity. It may
be hereditary, in=20 which case it is specifically applied to a lord of Parliament in
the=20 peerage (2) of Scotland and colloquially or loosely to a male who=20 holds the
title of baron, earl, marquess or viscount, either=20 substantively or as a courtesy
title." <http://www.burkes-peerage.net/sites/peerage/sitepages/page66-lord.asp>

>>>>Your salvation lies within your own mind.
>>>
>>>Only if you were God, but you are not. It is written that Satan "sold=
" the idea of disobedience to Adam and
>>>Eve with the lie that they would have God's power. One can't help but=
wonder if buddha bought into this idea.
>>
>>You cannot seriously be saying that you believe in the literal existence of Adam and Eve?
>>
> Yes. There is actually scientific evidence at the genetic level for t=
he existence of Eve.

This is about as shocking a "revelation" of Chung's anti-scientific=20 aberration as he's ever
posted. The genetic information is hardly=20 evidence and it's being essentially debunked by
research and fossil=20 evidence. Here are a few places to look, actual universities, not=20 wacko
religious cranks talking.

"Even though the studies refer to a single man or woman in the past,=20 they do not imply that those
people were a couple or even that they=20 were the only parents of all humans. Their primary
significance is in=20 pointing to the time when anatomically modern human beings, ****=20 sapiens
sapiens, evolved from a more primitive ancestor, generally=20 thought to be an archaic form of ****
sapiens. Most experts think the=20 founders of the modern species numbered around 10,000."
<http://www.people.virginia.edu/~rjh9u/adameve.html>

--------------------
"Study puts =91Eve theory=92 of human evolution to rest" "Two million years ago somewhere in
Africa, a small group of=20 individuals became separated from other australopithecines.
This=20 population bottleneck led to a series of sudden, interrelated=20 changes=97in body
size, brain size, skeletal proportions and=20 behavior=97that jump-started the evolution of
our species.

"That is the conclusion of a new U-M study published in the January=20 2000 issue of Molecular
Biology and Evolution that analyzes a broad=20 range of genetic, fossil and archeological evidence
to decipher the=20 most likely scenario for the start of human evolution."
<http://www.umich.edu/~urecord/9900/Jan17_00/12.htm>

--------------------------
"The findings are the latest evidence in the continuing scientific=20 controversy about the origin
of modern **** sapiens. Many scientists=20 believe that all living humans can trace their ancestry
exclusively to=20 a small group of ancient humans, probably Africans, living around=20 100,000 years
ago. This explanation=97known as the Eve hypothesis or=20 replacement theory=97means that all other
early human groups, whose=20 fossils date from this time back to almost 2 million years ago, must=20
have become extinct, possibly wiped out in a prehistoric genetic=20 holocaust.

"Other scientists, including Wolpoff and his colleagues on this study,=20 maintain that there is
little evidence that a small group originating=20 in a single geographic region replaced the entire
population of early=20 humans.

"The genetic evidence always has been unclear, Wolpoff and his=20 colleagues note, because different
genes support different theories:=20 Mitochondrial genes support replacement theory, while nuclear
genes=20 support the development of an older, worldwide species of human ancestors=
=2E

" 'In asking the question a different way and directly addressing the=20 fossils, this study
provides compelling evidence that replacement is=20 the wrong explanation,' Wolpoff says. 'Instead,
the findings support=20 the theory of multiregional evolution. Modern humans are the present=20
manifestation of an older worldwide species with populations connected=20 by gene flow and the
exchange of ideas. Modern human groups are very=20 much more similar than different because of
comparable adaptations to=20 ideas and technologies that spread across the inhabited world and=20
because of the dispersals of successful genes promoted by selection.'"
<http://www.umich.edu/~urecord/0001/Jan22_01/12.htm>

-------------------------------
Genetic Distance and Language Affinities Between Autochthonous Human=20 Populations "Part of
this research was the theory of "Eve," a single female in=20 Africa, around 200,000 years
ago, from whom every living human being=20 is now descended. This does not mean that there
were not other human=20 females -- there were -- or that we are not descended from them too
--=20 we are. The theory is based on the circumstance that some human=20 genetic material is
contained in the mitochondria, little organs in a=20 cell outside the nucleus (where most
genetic material is contained).=20 Sperm cells do not pass on their mitochondria to a
fertilzed egg and=20 so all human mitochondrial DNA is inherited from the mother. If a=20
woman has only sons (a highly desirable result in many traditional=20 cultures), then her
own mitochondrial DNA is actually lost. Over time,=20 this seems to have happened to all
lines of descent of Mitochondrial=20 DNA, except one, the line from "Eve." Another
interesting feature of=20 the chart is the closeness of American Indians to modern
population=20 across Europe, the Middle East, and northern East Asia. Thus,=20 curiously,
Europeans are more closely related to American Indians than=20 to Polynesians. Finally, it
is noteworthy that skin color is not at=20 all helpful is providing clues to genetic
affinity. The darkest=20 colored people on earth, in Africa, India, Melanesia, and
Australia,=20 are scattered between groups that are only distantly related. Dark=20 skin
color is certainly a function of living under the equatorial sun=20 for many generations,
but all human populations have the genetic=20 wherewithal to make that adaptation."
<http://www.friesian.com/trees.htm>

> Then what are you looking for when you come here?
>=20
> Why do you feel the need to defend aspects of Siddhartha's life?

"Explain" is more like it. When Chung does his little snide abrasions,=20 Mozz rises above it. He
explains Chung's relentless and deliberate=20 misunderstandings. He makes Buddhism sound
reasonable, and he, by his=20 moderate and rational tone, makes Chung look like the
fundamentalist=20 crank he is.

I'm praying for everybody.

Bob
 
Hello Andrew,

>> Most of my research is from good old fashioned books I'm sorry to say. If I come across any
>> relevant online work I'll flag it up for you though.
>
>I am surprised you have not returned better prepared.

My preferance for research is books as opposed to the internet. I have found a high proportion of
online research flawed and unreliable due to the lack of editorial checks and balances.

As I said, if I happen upon anything useful on the subjects in question I will happily pass this
information on to you. However, if you decide to doubt what I have said then that is perfectly
acceptable. No problem.

>> Surely you are not asking me why we should be concerned about fairness, impartiality and reason?

>These things will take care of themselves. They do not need either your protection or nurturing.

And yet my past experience of debating with you and some others here on SMC has revealed a flagrant
disregard for fairness, impartiality and reason.

>Go ahead and cite something on-line that supports your assertion that and Indian woman advanced in
>social status if her husband chose to pursue a spiritual path.

See above.

>> I understand that a widely held definition of sin is 'transgression and thus seperation from God'
>> - If so, the concept of sin itself upholds a mistaken view of reality as a belief in a creator
>> deity is a delusion.
>
>Folks recognize sin even when they do not believe in God.

Can you give some examples of this?

>> Denial is to choose to believe in the fantasy of a creator deity.

>Denial is to disbelieve rather than to believe.

I do not believe in god, and yet I am not in denial of the truth.

>Plying a trade is not the same as studying/thinking.

So as a doctor you accept that you have no need to study or think?

>> No one is walking with Christ,
>
>Many are.
>
>> as in reality Christ does not exist
>
>According to buddha?

Budda was born 500 years before Jesus. If you equate Jesus with God, then Buddha did not accept that
there was a need to believe in such a being. In fact belief in such a thing is pure delusion and a
cause for more suffering.

>> other than as a set of projections built on interpretations picked up from the culture and
>> environment around you over the years.
>>
>
>Have you learned this from buddha?

See above.

>> >(2) Jesus Christ said as a man that He is the "Truth, the Way, and the Life" and the Son of God.
>>
>> The most we can say with accuracy here is that we are implored to accept that Jesus once said
>> these things by the writers of the gospels.
>>
>
>It is so written in the Holy Bible. There are no evidence to support any assertions that He did not
>say what has been attributed to Him in the Bible.

There is no evidence to support any assertions that he did actually say what has been attributed to
him either. More so, there is much evidence to show that the synoptic gospels were a gradual 'patch
work' construction by many people over the decades after Jesus died. An excellent book to read would
be The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q & Christian Origins by Burton L. Mack.

Here is a quote from a review - "The ideas in this book support a conclusion that can also be
arrived at without them, namely that the New Testament as we know it is the result of different
groups of people, who lived in different time periods and social circumstances, had different
objectives for writing what they wrote, and whose collective efforts are best characterized (as this
book does) as the making of the Christian myth. Compared to such a view, the idea that The Bible is
"the infallible word of God" and that those who "believe" in it "have it right" while everyone who
doesn't "has got it wrong", seems quite antiquated and naive. Indeed, when the Christian myth is
recognized as just that, it becomes the equal of other religious myths, and the peoples who adhere
to them, equal among equals. When the notion disappears that the Christian myth provides the
ultimate context, the ultimate explanation, and ultimate destiny of mankind, perhaps then this world
will have a better chance of becoming a paradise of sorts for its inhabitants."

>> >(3) His followers have testified that He is the Messiah to their deaths.
>>
>> This does not mean Jesus was in fact the messiah. It merely shows the strength of belief held by
>> his followers. In the very same way look to the Palestinian suicide-bombers of today or the
>> Islamic Jihad members, or indeed the Al Queda operatives who also exhibit the same zeal in the
>> name of their god.
>
>These folks are dead. We live.

Until it is your time to die as well.

>> >(4) Despite (3), here we are, far greater in number and in strength.
>>
>> For everything there is a season. Things change. Civilisations rise, civilisations fall....
>
>Christianity is not a civilization. There are followers of Christ in every nation on this planet.

Religions rise, religions fall...some are saying even now that Christianity is on the wane and Islam
on the rise...For everything there is a season.

>> >(5) All who have challenged these facts, here at SMC and elsewhere, have fallen.
>>
>> And yet I am still standing.

>You are treading water. Your raft has long been sunk.

Explain exactly what you mean by this curious analogy you enjoy making so frequently?

>1-5 above are verifiable facts and not dogma.

What are your criteria for what constitutes a fact?
>>
>> >> >Is the crucifix a graven image of Christ?
>> >>
>> >> What do you think the crucifix signifies?
>>
>> >It reminds us of God's sacrifice.
>>
>> Ah, it fulfils the same function as the image of a Golden Calf once reminded the Israelites of
>> Mamon on the slopes of Mount Sinai?
>>
>
>No.

The calf was an image of a god - Mamon. As such it was a reminder. The crucifix (with or without a
Jesus figure on) is an image of God's agency in the world - as such it is a reminder. It fulfils the
same function.

>> And yet your God also made athiests, muslims, jews, hindus, communists etc etc....is it also no
>> surprise their beliefs are not in accordance with your God?
>
>Yes. It is no surprise that they, like buddha, got lost.
>
>God also gave them free will to choose the wayward path.

Your original point was that Buddha came to the same conclusion as God because God made Buddha. By
your logic, Buddha had free will, therefore his wise conclusions were of his own choosing and had
nothing to do with God's influence. You can't have it both ways Andrew.

>> >> In psychology this is witnessed by the so called 'zealous' who try so hard to convince others
>> >> of their beliefs they become quite agitated and angry when others show resistance. This is
>> >> because they unconsciously are really doubting their beliefs and secretly wish to convince
>> >> themselves.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Is that how you would explain the fact that I am neither agitated nor angry with you?
>> >(i.e. I am secure in my beliefs and have no need to convince either myself or you)
>>
>> Interesting that you assume I refer to you.

>I didn't.

Your question 'Is that how you would explain the fact that I am neither agitated nor angry with
you?' suggests you did.

>> And yet your posts betray you.
>
>My posts serve to glorify God.

There is no God other than that conjured in your mind by the strength of your conviction.

>> You still strive to convince me that you are right and I am wrong
>
>Simply giving you information.

Propaganda.

>> (all the while unconsciously trying to reinforce your own beliefs - see your 5 points above)
>>
>
>If I were insecure in my beliefs, why am I not acting as you would expect for someone who is
>insecure is his/her beliefs?

You posts betray the reality of your state of mind.

>Where is the "agitation" and the "anger" ?

Your posts are rife with 'passive-aggressive' attempts at manipulation. Read them back with a more
open mind if you can.

>> >Yes. Paying lip service to anyone or anything is a sign of respect especially when there is
>> >disagreement. The servant that says "Yes, Sir" to his master when he is thinking "No, I don't
>> >want to do this" is being respectful.
>>
>> This is nonsense.
>
>It is the truth.
>
>> It is not respectful to say one thing and yet mean another.
>
>In the relationship between a servant and his/her master, it is respectful for the servant to abide
>by the master's wishes even if there is disagreement.

So by that logic you would advocate lying to God?

>Christ is the path to the cessation of suffering and the whole of enlightenment.

The Christ portrayed in the gospels does not lead to true cessation of suffering or enlightenment.
He advocates that one place ones salvation in the hands of another. Buddha showed that ones
salvation is to be found within oneself and through ones own effort and responsibility one can reach
nirvana. There is no need to look elsewhere.

>> You cannot seriously be saying that you believe in the literal existence of Adam and Eve?

>Yes. There is actually scientific evidence at the genetic level for the existence of Eve.

Can you show me this evidence? It seems to fly in the face of all respectable scientific opinion
that I am aware of.

>Then what are you looking for when you come here?

An opportunity to help others. Meditation helped me lower my blood pressure significantly and it
remains low without medication. If anyone would like to talk about meditation techniques they could
do at home I'd be happy to help.

>Why do you feel the need to defend aspects of Siddhartha's life?

I feel it is only right to point out errors others make in ignorance of the facts regarding
Siddhartha's life.

>It remains my choice to pray to God, in Christ's name, on your behalf.

Thank you, but I would rather you chose to look within yourself and seek the truth.

"Through many a birth I wandered in this endless cycle of births and deaths, seeking, but not
finding, the builder of the house. Sorrowful is it to be born again and again. O house-builder! you
are seen. You shall build no house again All your rafters are broken. Your ridge pole is shattered.
My mind has attained the Unconditioned. Achieved is the end of craving".

Here the Buddha explained how rebirth entails suffering. Through many lives He wandered and
suffered, and searched for the architect of this body (the 'house'). In His final birth, He
discovered that the creator or architect was not an external being but was man's own internal
nature. This elusive architect is Craving or Attachment, a self created force latent in all.

May all beings find true happiness.

Mozz x
 
Mozz wrote:

> Hello Andrew,

Hi Mozz.

> >> Most of my research is from good old fashioned books I'm sorry to say. If I come across any
> >> relevant online work I'll flag it up for you though.
> >
> >I am surprised you have not returned better prepared.
>
> My preferance for research is books as opposed to the internet. I have found a high proportion of
> online research flawed and unreliable due to the lack of editorial checks and balances.
>

Ok, show us the few online references about buddha that you favor.

> As I said, if I happen upon anything useful on the subjects in question I will happily pass this
> information on to you. However, if you decide to doubt what I have said then that is perfectly
> acceptable.

This is called a discussion. Whether I doubt you should not concern you. Whether you doubt me does
not concern me.

> No problem.

Then why mention it?

>
> >> Surely you are not asking me why we should be concerned about fairness, impartiality and
> >> reason?
>
> >These things will take care of themselves. They do not need either your protection or nurturing.
>
> And yet my past experience of debating with you and some others here on SMC has revealed a
> flagrant disregard for fairness, impartiality and reason.

I see this as a discussion, an activity for information exchange.

Why do you seem so defensive?

> >Go ahead and cite something on-line that supports your assertion that and Indian woman advanced
> >in social status if her husband chose to pursue a spiritual path.
>
> See above.
>

"on-line"

> >> I understand that a widely held definition of sin is 'transgression and thus seperation from
> >> God' - If so, the concept of sin itself upholds a mistaken view of reality as a belief in a
> >> creator deity is a delusion.
> >
> >Folks recognize sin even when they do not believe in God.
>
> Can you give some examples of this?
>

You do not believe in God and yet you recognize a "disregard for fairness."

To kill another is unfair.

To steal from another is unfair.

To bear false witness regarding another is unfair.

(Stephen likely will chime in right about here claiming to be unfairly accused of cyberstalking...
this is to be expected because the untruthful will often see truth as being unfair to them)

>
> >> Denial is to choose to believe in the fantasy of a creator deity.
>
> >Denial is to disbelieve rather than to believe.
>
> I do not believe in god, and yet I am not in denial of the truth.
>

A person who is in denial is typically not aware of it.

> >Plying a trade is not the same as studying/thinking.
>
> So as a doctor you accept that you have no need to study or think?
>

No. I choose to continue studying and thinking. There are those who choose to rely solely on
continued clinical experience..

> >> No one is walking with Christ,
> >
> >Many are.
> >
> >> as in reality Christ does not exist
> >
> >According to buddha?
>
> Budda was born 500 years before Jesus.

Jesus existed from the beginning of time.

> If you equate Jesus with God, then Buddha did not accept that there was a need to believe in such
> a being. In fact belief in such a thing is pure delusion and a cause for more suffering.

This would be fiction.

In truth, our sins are the cause of our suffering. Jesus recognized this because He had no sin. The
only times He suffered during His time as a "son of man" was when He took our sins upon Himself.
First, when He fasted and suffered from hunger as Satan tempted Him. Recall that succumbing to
temptation to eat something forbidden and thereby violating God's One Commandment was how Adam and
Eve sinned . Second, when He suffered from anger at money changing being conducted at a synagogue.
Recall that the reason for the money changing was the graven images of a god-emperor on the coins.
This is a violation of the first two of God's X Commandments. Third, when He suffered from the pain
of death as a consequence of the false witnessing by men, we end up seeing many of the rest of the X
Commandments violated (III, VI, VIII, IX, X).

> >> other than as a set of projections built on interpretations picked up from the culture and
> >> environment around you over the years.
> >>
> >
> >Have you learned this from buddha?
>
> See above.
>

Yes, please do.

>
> >> >(2) Jesus Christ said as a man that He is the "Truth, the Way, and the Life" and the Son of
> >> > God.
> >>
> >> The most we can say with accuracy here is that we are implored to accept that Jesus once said
> >> these things by the writers of the gospels.
> >>
> >
> >It is so written in the Holy Bible. There are no evidence to support any assertions that He did
> >not say what has been attributed to Him in the Bible.
>
> There is no evidence to support any assertions that he did actually say what has been attributed
> to him either.

Similarly, there is no evidence to support anything spoken that you would attribute to buddha or
anyone else before the age of electronic recording devices.

> More so, there is much evidence to show that the synoptic gospels were a gradual 'patch work'
> construction by many people over the decades after Jesus died.

Does anyone have a recording of what Jesus said?

> An excellent book to read would be The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q & Christian Origins by Burton
> L. Mack.

I am familiar with the stories concerning the Book of Q.

> Here is a quote from a review - "The ideas in this book support a conclusion

In truth, ideas do not support any conclusion.

> that can also be arrived at without them, namely that the New Testament as we know it is the
> result of different groups of people, who lived in different time periods and social
> circumstances, had different objectives for writing what they wrote, and whose collective efforts
> are best characterized (as this book does) as the making of the Christian myth.

If it were simply just a myth, how would one explain the reactions of the anti-christians that you
have witnessed here at SMC?

Historical examples of myths did not encounter the opposition that Christianity encountered and
has overcome.

Do you know of any historical accounts of folks who believed caesar was a god being tracked down to
be executed?

Any worshippers of Zeus?

Any worshippers of Apollo?

Any worshippers of buddha?

> Compared to such a view, the idea that The Bible is "the infallible word of God" and that those
> who "believe" in it "have it right" while everyone who doesn't "has got it wrong", seems quite
> antiquated and naive.

An idea is either true or false.

The idea that the Bible is the word of God is true.

The idea that buddha's teachings are the word of God is false.

> Indeed, when the Christian myth is recognized as just that, it becomes the equal of other
> religious myths, and the peoples who adhere to them, equal among equals.

Good thing Christ is not a myth.

To know Christ is to know humility.

To know we are not better than our neighbor.

To know that we need Him because we are not superior.

> When the notion disappears that the Christian myth provides the ultimate context, the ultimate
> explanation, and ultimate destiny of mankind, perhaps then this world will have a better chance of
> becoming a paradise of sorts for its inhabitants."

You have only to visit China where religion is suppressed to see what kind of paradise this reviewer
envisions.

> >> >(3) His followers have testified that He is the Messiah to their deaths.
> >>
> >> This does not mean Jesus was in fact the messiah. It merely shows the strength of belief held
> >> by his followers. In the very same way look to the Palestinian suicide-bombers of today or the
> >> Islamic Jihad members, or indeed the Al Queda operatives who also exhibit the same zeal in the
> >> name of their god.
> >
> >These folks are dead. We live.
>
> Until it is your time to die as well.
>

We have eternal life through Christ.

> >> >(4) Despite (3), here we are, far greater in number and in strength.
> >>
> >> For everything there is a season. Things change. Civilisations rise, civilisations fall....
> >
> >Christianity is not a civilization. There are followers of Christ in every nation on this planet.
>
> Religions rise, religions fall...

And so truth survives myth.

> some are saying even now that Christianity is on the wane and Islam on the rise...

Not if their followers continue to commit suicide-bombings and other acts of terrorism.

> For everything there is a season.

Except truth.

> >> >(5) All who have challenged these facts, here at SMC and elsewhere, have fallen.
> >>
> >> And yet I am still standing.
>
> >You are treading water. Your raft has long been sunk.
>
> Explain exactly what you mean by this curious analogy you enjoy making so frequently?
>

You have placed your faith on the teachings of a dead man who discovered emptiness.

>
> >1-5 above are verifiable facts and not dogma.
>
> What are your criteria for what constitutes a fact?

A fact is true.

> >>
> >> >> >Is the crucifix a graven image of Christ?
> >> >>
> >> >> What do you think the crucifix signifies?
> >>
> >> >It reminds us of God's sacrifice.
> >>
> >> Ah, it fulfils the same function as the image of a Golden Calf once reminded the Israelites of
> >> Mamon on the slopes of Mount Sinai?
> >>
> >
> >No.
>
> The calf was an image of a god - Mamon. As such it was a reminder.

It served to more than remind. It became an object of worship or reverence.

>
> The crucifix (with or without a Jesus figure on) is an image of God's agency in the world - as
> such it is a reminder. It fulfils the same function.

Sorry, but it does not.

> >> And yet your God also made athiests, muslims, jews, hindus, communists etc etc....is it also no
> >> surprise their beliefs are not in accordance with your God?
> >
> >Yes. It is no surprise that they, like buddha, got lost.
> >
> >God also gave them free will to choose the wayward path.
>
> Your original point was that Buddha came to the same conclusion as God because God made Buddha.

My point is that because God made buddha, it would be expected that many of his ideas could have
come from God.

> By your logic, Buddha had free will,

He did.

> therefore his wise conclusions were of his own choosing

He could have chosen God's ideas.

> and had nothing to do with God's influence.

Almost everything that buddha was, *almost* everything that he saw, touched, tasted, or otherwise
experienced was from God. It is more than likely that buddha was influenced by God although he
turned away from Him and embraced emptiness.

The latter is free will, Mozz.

> You can't have it both ways

You can't serve God and embrace emptiness.

>
> Andrew.
>
> >> >> In psychology this is witnessed by the so called 'zealous' who try so hard to convince
> >> >> others of their beliefs they become quite agitated and angry when others show resistance.
> >> >> This is because they unconsciously are really doubting their beliefs and secretly wish to
> >> >> convince themselves.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Is that how you would explain the fact that I am neither agitated nor angry with you?
> >> >(i.e. I am secure in my beliefs and have no need to convince either myself or you)
> >>
> >> Interesting that you assume I refer to you.
>
> >I didn't.
>
> Your question 'Is that how you would explain the fact that I am neither agitated nor angry with
> you?' suggests you did.

You described that the angry and agitated behavior of "fanatics" revealed their insecurity regarding
their own beliefs. If I had assumed that you were calling me a fanatic, I would have simply told you
"I am not a fanatic."

Instead, I assumed you were not calling me a fanatic, which allows me to point out that my beliefs
in Christ are secure. How else would you explain my composure when encountering the "angry and
agitated" animosity of those who are offended by my being Christian.

> >> And yet your posts betray you.
> >
> >My posts serve to glorify God.
>
> There is no God other than that conjured in your mind by the strength of your conviction.
>

Your buddha now knows better for he now knows the truth.

> >> You still strive to convince me that you are right and I am wrong
> >
> >Simply giving you information.
>
> Propaganda.

If all you are getting from this discussion is propaganda, why are you here?

> >> (all the while unconsciously trying to reinforce your own beliefs - see your 5 points above)
> >>
> >
> >If I were insecure in my beliefs, why am I not acting as you would expect for someone who is
> >insecure is his/her beliefs?
>
> You posts betray the reality of your state of mind.
>

God would have me write truthfully.

> >Where is the "agitation" and the "anger" ?
>
> Your posts are rife with 'passive-aggressive' attempts at manipulation.

Shall I repeat the question?

> Read them back with a more open mind if you can.
>

I still see the same unanswered questions. Your not answering them is very telling and betrays your
insecurities.

> >> >Yes. Paying lip service to anyone or anything is a sign of respect especially when there is
> >> >disagreement. The servant that says "Yes, Sir" to his master when he is thinking "No, I don't
> >> >want to do this" is being respectful.
> >>
> >> This is nonsense.
> >
> >It is the truth.
> >
> >> It is not respectful to say one thing and yet mean another.
> >
> >In the relationship between a servant and his/her master, it is respectful for the servant to
> >abide by the master's wishes even if there is disagreement.
>
> So by that logic you would advocate lying to God?

Not possible. He knows what we are thinking as we are thinking it. This is why there is not an 11th
Commandment like "Thou shalt not lie to God."

> >Christ is the path to the cessation of suffering and the whole of enlightenment.
>
> The Christ portrayed in the gospels does not lead to true cessation of suffering or enlightenment.

A person who conquers suffering and achieves complete enlightenment defeats death.

Christ, as described in the Gospels, defeated death.

> He advocates that one place ones salvation in the hands of another.

Christ did more than advocate... He has saved us.

> Buddha showed that ones salvation is to be found within oneself and through ones own effort and
> responsibility one can reach nirvana.

Has Buddha ever said he reached nirvana?

> There is no need to look elsewhere.
>

Do you really believe that you do not need anyone else?

> >> You cannot seriously be saying that you believe in the literal existence of Adam and Eve?
>
> >Yes. There is actually scientific evidence at the genetic level for the existence of Eve.
>
> Can you show me this evidence?

We know the genetic sequence of the mitochondrial DNA of Eve.

If you really want the Pubmed citation, let me know. Would be more than happy to set up a
link for you.

> It seems to fly in the face of all respectable scientific opinion that I am aware of.
>

Truth is better than opinion.

> >Then what are you looking for when you come here?
>
> An opportunity to help others.

Haven't seen you contribute in this regard.

> Meditation helped me lower my blood pressure significantly and it remains low without medication.

How's your blood pressure during this discussion ? :)

> If anyone would like to talk about meditation techniques they could do at home I'd be happy
> to help.
>

Any studies that show meditation works independent of other lifestyle altering effects that may be
coincident with meditation ?

> >Why do you feel the need to defend aspects of Siddhartha's life?
>
> I feel it is only right to point out errors others make in ignorance of the facts regarding
> Siddhartha's life.
>

Sounds like these "errors" wound you.

> >It remains my choice to pray to God, in Christ's name, on your behalf.
>
> Thank you, but I would rather you chose to look within yourself and seek the truth.
>

Have already found the truth in Christ. Before that, nothing within me could compare.

> "Through many a birth I wandered in this endless cycle of births and deaths,

And so he (we) suffered during our time here on earth witnessing many births and deaths.

> seeking, but not finding, the builder of the house.

God, the Father/Creator ("builder of the house"), is too big to be taken in by our eyes.

> Sorrowful is it to be born again and again. O house-builder! you are seen.

Not sure who buddha saw here. It was not God.

> You shall build no house again All your rafters are broken. Your ridge pole is shattered.

The universe remains as it was.

> My mind has attained the Unconditioned.

Sounds like a delusion.

> Achieved is the end of craving".

In a word: denial.

> Here the Buddha explained how rebirth entails suffering. Through many lives He wandered and
> suffered, and searched for the architect of this body (the 'house'). In His final birth, He
> discovered that the creator or architect was not an external being but was man's own
> internal nature.

When was this "final birth" ?

> This elusive architect is Craving or Attachment, a self created force latent in all.
>

So you believe in self-creation?

> May all beings find true happiness.
>
> Mozz x

Truth is better.

You remain in my prayers, neighbor.

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/?T13943F77

Is this spam?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?N69721867
 
Hello again Andrew,

>> My preferance for research is books as opposed to the internet. I have found a high proportion of
>> online research flawed and unreliable due to the lack of editorial checks and balances.
>
>Ok, show us the few online references about buddha that you favor.

I don't particularly favour or disfavour any online buddhist references. As I have stated, most
of my research has been from books, published works and direct one to one teaching. For example,
last year I finished the Foundation Of Buddhist Thought two year intensive course here in London
taught directly by an authentic Tibetan geshe (monk) who himself was a direct student of His
Holiness the Dalai Lama. So as you see, I prefer my sources of information to be as reliable and
authentic as possible.

>This is called a discussion.

Respectfully Andrew, you appear to conduct your 'discussions' in a rather adversarial manner (and
not only the ones with me). Perhaps you are unconsciously doing so?

>Whether I doubt you should not concern you.

Why not?

>Whether you doubt me does not concern me

>> No problem.
>
>Then why mention it?

Here is an example of your passive-aggression in action.

>I see this as a discussion, an activity for information exchange.

And here an example of your ambivalence and defensiveness to truly exchange anything of worth. You
seem to need to define the paramaters of discussion at it's most basic structural framework - the
exchange of information - data - just like computers sharing files. You make a conscious point of
leaving out the actual reason for discussions, which is to touch others lives in a meaningful way,
to inspire where possible, to share feelings as well as data, and most of all - to allow for the
possibility of change in the individual - in both yourself and others.

>> >Folks recognize sin even when they do not believe in God.
>>
>> Can you give some examples of this?
>>
>
>You do not believe in God and yet you recognize a "disregard for fairness."

I do not call a disregard for fairness a sin. It is a disregard for fairness.

>To kill another is unfair.

I agree

>To steal from another is unfair.

I agree

>To bear false witness regarding another is unfair.

I agree, yet none of these moral points need be called 'sin' or indeed have any connection to a God
or religion to remain valid.

>(Stephen likely will chime in right about here claiming to be unfairly accused of cyberstalking...
>this is to be expected because the untruthful will often see truth as being unfair to them)

Stop right there Andrew and take a breath. Was that cheap shot aimed at Stephen (whoever he may be)
necessary in our 'discussion'? Was it even a Christian thing to do? Can you not let go of things
like that? It does you no credit at all and certainly has the opposite affect of 'glorifying your
God'. Could you honestly imagine Jesus behaving in the same way as you did here? Can you not turn
the other cheek instead of stoking the fires that are clearly provocative? You see, this is your passive-
aggressive nature unchecked again. Try to take heed my friend.

>A person who is in denial is typically not aware of it.

Precisely. Think wisely on that point my friend.

>> >Plying a trade is not the same as studying/thinking.
>>
>> So as a doctor you accept that you have no need to study or think?

>No. I choose to continue studying and thinking. There are those who choose to rely solely on
>continued clinical experience..

well, there were many 'educated' and impressive laymen who also chose to think and study as
effectively as the holy men did on the mysteries of existence.

>> Budda was born 500 years before Jesus.
>
>Jesus existed from the beginning of time.

There is no beginning to time and there will be no end.

>> If you equate Jesus with God, then Buddha did not accept that there was a need to believe in such
>> a being. In fact belief in such a thing is pure delusion and a cause for more suffering.
>
>This would be fiction.

Explain to me why there is a need to believe in a creator deity?

>In truth, our sins are the cause of our suffering.
(our suffering is caused by afflictive emotion and ignorance of the truth that all emptiness is form
and all form is emptiness)
>Jesus recognized this because He had no sin. The only times He suffered during His time as a "son
>of man" was when He took our sins upon Himself.
Being a man, Jesus lived in samsaric realm therefore he would not have escaped suffering unless he
too had followed the dharma.
> First, when He fasted and suffered from hunger as Satan tempted Him. Recall that succumbing to
> temptation to eat something forbidden and thereby violating God's One Commandment was how Adam and
> Eve sinned .
Jesus was most unskilful here. To fast to excess (as buddha himself discovered when first seeking
enlightenment) is not the Middle Way. If a string on a bow is too tight it will break when played,
if too loose it will not play at all. The same for how kind or harsh we are with ourselves.

>Second, when He suffered from anger at money changing being conducted at a synagogue. Recall that
>the reason for the money changing was the graven images of a god-emperor on the coins. This is a
>violation of the first two of God's X Commandments.

Anger is an afflictive emotion and not at all conducive to an enlightened state of mind. Jesus would
have created negative karma and suffering for himself by giving in to anger.

>Third, when He suffered from the pain of death as a consequence of the false witnessing by men, we
>end up seeing many of the rest of the X Commandments violated (III, VI, VIII, IX, X).

I pray Jesus found better circumstances in his next rebirth as a human so he may follow the dharma
and reach true liberation from suffering.

>
>Similarly, there is no evidence to support anything spoken that you would attribute to buddha or
>anyone else before the age of electronic recording devices.

The difference between Christian theology and Buddhist practice is that whether buddha existed or
not is irrelevant. What is of ultimate value is the teachings - the dharma - which has been put into
practice by millions of people all over the world, the benefit of which can be experienced by anyone
willing to make the effort. There is no requirement of 'faith' or 'belief' like Christianity
demands. One can see for oneself the direct benefits of buddhist practice in action.

>> More so, there is much evidence to show that the synoptic gospels were a gradual 'patch work'
>> construction by many people over the decades after Jesus died.
>
>Does anyone have a recording of what Jesus said?

No

>> An excellent book to read would be The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q & Christian Origins by Burton
>> L. Mack.
>
>I am familiar with the stories concerning the Book of Q.

Then you are aware of the significance I refer.

>If it were simply just a myth, how would one explain the reactions of the anti-christians that you
>have witnessed here at SMC?

Because people like you claim that the myth is ultimately true?

>Historical examples of myths did not encounter the opposition that Christianity encountered and has
>overcome.
>
>Do you know of any historical accounts of folks who believed caesar was a god being tracked down to
>be executed?

Rome was too powerful and all encompassing to have countenanced such dissent.
>
>Any worshippers of Zeus?
>
>Any worshippers of Apollo?

Infact there are records of such rivalries in Ancient Greece between various political and
religious factions.

>Any worshippers of buddha?

See Tibet and the Chinese occupation.

>An idea is either true or false.

Your truth is false to me. My truth is unacceptable to you. And yet the truth is out there.

>The idea that the Bible is the word of God is true.

True in your opinion. As there is in fact no God, it is untrue.

>The idea that buddha's teachings are the word of God is false.

I agree. There is no God.

>Good thing Christ is not a myth.

Christ is precisely that.

>To know Christ is to know humility.

Can one not know humility without reference to Christ? Humility as a concept did exist before
Jesus was born.

>We have eternal life through Christ.

You will die and be reborn again and again until you eventually manage to reach enlightenment.

>> Christianity is on the wane and Islam on the rise...
>
>Not if their followers continue to commit suicide-bombings and other acts of terrorism.

Most Muslims are peaceful and condemn the minority who perpetrate these atrocities. Why do you
choose to discount the vast majority to high light the minority? Imbalance again Andrew?
Disingenuous?

>> >You are treading water. Your raft has long been sunk.
>>
>> Explain exactly what you mean by this curious analogy you enjoy making so frequently?
>>
>
>You have placed your faith on the teachings of a dead man who discovered emptiness.

Yes, that is correct. Siddhartha is dead, yet his teachings survive. Wisdom is to know the truth
that all form is emptiness, and all emptiness form.

>> The calf was an image of a god - Mamon. As such it was a reminder.
>
>It served to more than remind. It became an object of worship or reverence.
>
>>
>> The crucifix (with or without a Jesus figure on) is an image of God's agency in the world - as
>> such it is a reminder. It fulfils the same function.
>
>Sorry, but it does not.

No need to apologise. I think, like the Calf, it fulfils the archetypal function of all 'symbols
and signs'.

>My point is that because God made buddha, it would be expected that many of his ideas could have
>come from God.

So any wisdom comes from God alone, yet anything else is free will and wayward. How ridiculous.
Circular logic will only make you dizzy!

>
>Almost everything that buddha was, *almost* everything that he saw, touched, tasted, or otherwise
>experienced was from God. It is more than likely that buddha was influenced by God although he
>turned away from Him and embraced emptiness.

There is no God other than the one you serve in your mind.

>You can't serve God and embrace emptiness.

All is emptiness ultimately.

>
>You described that the angry and agitated behavior of "fanatics" revealed their insecurity
>regarding their own beliefs. If I had assumed that you were calling me a fanatic, I would have
>simply told you "I am not a fanatic."
>
>Instead, I assumed you were not calling me a fanatic, which allows me to point out that my beliefs
>in Christ are secure. How else would you explain my composure when encountering the "angry and
>agitated" animosity of those who are offended by my being Christian.

You are not as composed as you like to believe Andrew. I see cracks in your mask in the other posts
I read. Would you like me to list examples for you?

>Your buddha now knows better for he now knows the truth.

Agreed. And the truth is that all is emptiness.

>If all you are getting from this discussion is propaganda, why are you here?

Would you rather I left?

>> Buddha showed that ones salvation is to be found within oneself and through ones own effort and
>> responsibility one can reach nirvana.
>
>Has Buddha ever said he reached nirvana?

Yes. Nirvana is a state of being, not a place. It is possible to reach nirvana while living.

>Do you really believe that you do not need anyone else?

I know it. Practice the dharma and you too will not need anyone else's agency in your 'salvation'.
>
>> >> You cannot seriously be saying that you believe in the literal existence of Adam and Eve?
>>
>> >Yes. There is actually scientific evidence at the genetic level for the existence of Eve.
>>
>> Can you show me this evidence?
>
>We know the genetic sequence of the mitochondrial DNA of Eve.
>
>If you really want the Pubmed citation, let me know. Would be more than happy to set up a
>link for you.

do you also believe that God made the world in 6 days and on the 7th rested?

do you believe in the Flood and that Noah built an ark large enough to carry two of every animal and
that he did so?

do you believe Lot's wife truly turned into a pillar of salt?

do you believe there really was a Tower of Babel that reached up to Heaven?

Please tell me.
>
>> >Then what are you looking for when you come here?
>>
>> An opportunity to help others.
>
>Haven't seen you contribute in this regard.

I am wide to recieve

>> Meditation helped me lower my blood pressure significantly and it remains low without medication.
>
>How's your blood pressure during this discussion ? :)

It remains low :)

>Any studies that show meditation works independent of other lifestyle altering effects that may be
>coincident with meditation ?

Can you rephrase your question?

>> >Why do you feel the need to defend aspects of Siddhartha's life?
>>
>> I feel it is only right to point out errors others make in ignorance of the facts regarding
>> Siddhartha's life.
>>
>
>Sounds like these "errors" wound you.

I value fairness, impartiality and truth. I do not take anything others may say about buddhism
personally.

>When was this "final birth" ?

500 years ago.

>> This elusive architect is Craving or Attachment, a self created force latent in all.
>>
>
>So you believe in self-creation?

Craving or Attachment is a self created force.

Respectfully, Mozz x
 
Hi Mozz,

Glad to see that I haven't frightened you away with my truthfulness.

Mozz wrote:

> Hello again Andrew,
>
> <snip>
>
> I don't particularly favour or disfavour any online buddhist references. As I have stated, most of
> my research has been from books, published works and direct one to one teaching. For example, last
> year I finished the Foundation Of Buddhist Thought two year intensive course here in London taught
> directly by an authentic Tibetan geshe (monk) who himself was a direct student of His Holiness the
> Dalai Lama. So as you see, I prefer my sources of information to be as reliable and authentic as
> possible.
>

Is it your belief that an oral tradition is better than a written tradition?

>
> >This is called a discussion.
>
> Respectfully Andrew, you appear to conduct your 'discussions' in a rather adversarial manner (and
> not only the ones with me). Perhaps you are unconsciously doing so?
>

I am conscious of being truthful.

>
> >Whether I doubt you should not concern you.
>
> Why not?
>

Such concern may prove damaging to your "samsara."

>
> >Whether you doubt me does not concern me
>
> >> No problem.
> >
> >Then why mention it?
>
> Here is an example of your passive-aggression in action.
>

Would suggest you make up your mind about whether I am passive or active.

This does not seem to bode well for your state of enlightenment.

>
> >I see this as a discussion, an activity for information exchange.
>
> And here an example of your ambivalence and defensiveness to truly exchange anything of worth. You
> seem to need to define the paramaters of discussion at it's most basic structural framework - the
> exchange of information - data - just like computers sharing files.

It would seem that you are unable to see past your computer.

Do you have it within you to overcome your difficulties?

Or will you need help from others?

> You make a conscious point of leaving out the actual reason for discussions, which is to touch
> others lives in a meaningful way, to inspire where possible, to share feelings as well as data,
> and most of all - to allow for the possibility of change in the individual - in both yourself
> and others.

Imho, such touching and sharing of feelings are best done in person rather than via a
computer keyboard.

> >> >Folks recognize sin even when they do not believe in God.
> >>
> >> Can you give some examples of this?
> >>
> >
> >You do not believe in God and yet you recognize a "disregard for fairness."
>
> I do not call a disregard for fairness a sin. It is a disregard for fairness.
>

Then why did you call it a "flagrant" disregard?

>
> >To kill another is unfair.
>
> I agree
>

and thus a sin.

>
> >To steal from another is unfair.
>
> I agree
>

and thus a sin.

>
> >To bear false witness regarding another is unfair.
>
> I agree, yet none of these moral points need be called 'sin' or indeed have any connection to a
> God or religion to remain valid.
>

And yet, folks who do not believe in God, recognize these as sins and have enacted laws to punish
those who would sin.

>
> >(Stephen likely will chime in right about here claiming to be unfairly accused of
> >cyberstalking... this is to be expected because the untruthful will often see truth as being
> >unfair to them)
>
> Stop right there Andrew and take a breath.

It remains an illustrative example about sin and your recognition of it.

> Was that cheap shot aimed at Stephen (whoever he may be) necessary in our 'discussion'?

It was not a cheap shot.

> Was it even a Christian thing to do?

Writing truthfully is a Christian thing.

> Can you not let go of things like that?

I have. God will judge.

>
> It does you no credit at all and certainly has the opposite affect of 'glorifying your God'.

I remain obedient to God.

> Could you honestly imagine Jesus behaving in the same way as you did here?

Jesus would be more blunt about the "plank" that is the eye of those who would judge.

> Can you not turn the other cheek instead of stoking the fires that are clearly provocative?

It remains my choice to walk with Jesus where ever His path may take us.

> You see, this is your passive-aggressive nature unchecked again. Try to take heed my friend.
>

Why are you fearful?

>
> >A person who is in denial is typically not aware of it.
>
> Precisely. Think wisely on that point my friend.
>

The wise man knows better than to deny God, who is the Creator.

> <snip>
>
> >> Budda was born 500 years before Jesus.
> >
> >Jesus existed from the beginning of time.
>
> There is no beginning to time and there will be no end.
>

That would make Buddha even more insignificant.

>
> >> If you equate Jesus with God, then Buddha did not accept that there was a need to believe in
> >> such a being. In fact belief in such a thing is pure delusion and a cause for more suffering.
> >
> >This would be fiction.
>
> Explain to me why there is a need to believe in a creator deity?
>

If there were a need, a case could be made that God is only fiction.

Siddhartha felt a need to end human suffering. He was probably dismayed to discover that he did not
have such power. And, so he probably had a need to believe in emptiness in order to escape his
disappointment. Where there is need, there is motivation for fiction.

>
> >In truth, our sins are the cause of our suffering.
> (our suffering is caused by afflictive emotion and ignorance of the truth that all emptiness is
> form and all form is emptiness)
>

One way to seemingly escape suffering is by denying suffering exists.

> >Jesus recognized this because He had no sin. The only times He suffered during His time as a "son
> >of man" was when He took our sins upon Himself.
> Being a man, Jesus lived in samsaric realm therefore he would not have escaped suffering unless he
> too had followed the dharma.

Being God, Jesus suffered by choice.

>
> > First, when He fasted and suffered from hunger as Satan tempted Him. Recall that succumbing to
> > temptation to eat something forbidden and thereby violating God's One Commandment was how Adam
> > and Eve sinned .
> Jesus was most unskilful here. To fast to excess (as buddha himself discovered when first seeking
> enlightenment) is not the Middle Way.

Without excesses, there can be no "middle way".

> If a string on a bow is too tight it will break when played, if too loose it will not play at all.
> The same for how kind or harsh we are with ourselves.

Knowing the right tension comes from the experience of a string that is too tight and too loose.

>
>
> >Second, when He suffered from anger at money changing being conducted at a synagogue. Recall that
> >the reason for the money changing was the graven images of a god-emperor on the coins. This is a
> >violation of the first two of God's X Commandments.
>
> Anger is an afflictive emotion and not at all conducive to an enlightened state of mind. Jesus
> would have created negative karma and suffering for himself by giving in to anger.

He chose to take on the suffering which are the wages of sin.

>
>
> >Third, when He suffered from the pain of death as a consequence of the false witnessing by men,
> >we end up seeing many of the rest of the X Commandments violated (III, VI, VIII, IX, X).
>
> I pray Jesus found better circumstances in his next rebirth as a human so he may follow the dharma
> and reach true liberation from suffering.
>

Jesus was resurrected and now sits with His Father in heaven. There will be no rebirth. There will
be a second coming.

>
> >
> >Similarly, there is no evidence to support anything spoken that you would attribute to buddha or
> >anyone else before the age of electronic recording devices.
>
> The difference between Christian theology and Buddhist practice is that whether buddha existed or
> not is irrelevant.

Your defense of Siddhartha's background would suggest otherwise.

> What is of ultimate value is the teachings - the dharma - which has been put into practice by
> millions of people all over the world, the benefit of which can be experienced by anyone willing
> to make the effort.

Then why the reverence toward buddha, whom you call "lord" ?

> There is no requirement of 'faith' or 'belief' like Christianity demands.

A Christian is defined as one who has accepted Christ as his/her Lord and Savior.

A buddhist is defined as one who believes that following buddha will end their suffering.

Does buddhism demand "faith" in buddha's teachings?

> One can see for oneself the direct benefits of buddhist practice in action.
>

One can see for oneself the truth in God's word.

>
> >> More so, there is much evidence to show that the synoptic gospels were a gradual 'patch work'
> >> construction by many people over the decades after Jesus died.
> >
> >Does anyone have a recording of what Jesus said?
>
> No
>

Therefore no evidence.

>
> >> An excellent book to read would be The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q & Christian Origins by Burton
> >> L. Mack.
> >
> >I am familiar with the stories concerning the Book of Q.
>
> Then you are aware of the significance I refer.
>

I am aware of the speculation.

>
> >If it were simply just a myth, how would one explain the reactions of the anti-christians that
> >you have witnessed here at SMC?
>
> Because people like you claim that the myth is ultimately true?
>

Buddha is a myth for the anti-christians. You claim that buddha's teaching are ultimately true. They
ignore you because they know that Buddha is a myth.

>
> >Historical examples of myths did not encounter the opposition that Christianity encountered and
> >has overcome.
> >
> >Do you know of any historical accounts of folks who believed caesar was a god being tracked down
> >to be executed?
>
> Rome was too powerful and all encompassing to have countenanced such dissent.

Not in its waning years.

>
> >
> >Any worshippers of Zeus?
> >
> >Any worshippers of Apollo?
>
> Infact there are records of such rivalries in Ancient Greece between various political and
> religious factions.
>
> >Any worshippers of buddha?
>
> See Tibet and the Chinese occupation.
>

The Dalai Lama remains alive.

>
> >An idea is either true or false.
>
> Your truth is false to me. My truth is unacceptable to you. And yet the truth is out there.
>

Jesus has said that He is the truth.

Has Buddha ever made this claim?

>
> >The idea that the Bible is the word of God is true.
>
> True in your opinion. As there is in fact no God, it is untrue.
>

Logically, the statement is true even from your perspective.

>
> >The idea that buddha's teachings are the word of God is false.
>
> I agree. There is no God.
>
> >Good thing Christ is not a myth.
>
> Christ is precisely that.
>
> >To know Christ is to know humility.
>
> Can one not know humility without reference to Christ? Humility as a concept did exist before
> Jesus was born.

Actually, up until Jesus' time there was no Greek word for "humility." Apostle Paul came up with
this new word to describe Christ.

>
>
> >We have eternal life through Christ.
>
> You will die and be reborn again and again until you eventually manage to reach enlightenment.
>

Since you claim that the Dalai Lama has already reached enlightenment, why does he keep
being reborn?

>
> >> Christianity is on the wane and Islam on the rise...
> >
> >Not if their followers continue to commit suicide-bombings and other acts of terrorism.
>
> Most Muslims are peaceful and condemn the minority who perpetrate these atrocities. Why do you
> choose to discount the vast majority to high light the minority? Imbalance again Andrew?
> Disingenuous?
>

Simply being truthful.

>
> >> >You are treading water. Your raft has long been sunk.
> >>
> >> Explain exactly what you mean by this curious analogy you enjoy making so frequently?
> >>
> >
> >You have placed your faith on the teachings of a dead man who discovered emptiness.
>
> Yes, that is correct. Siddhartha is dead, yet his teachings survive. Wisdom is to know the truth
> that all form is emptiness, and all emptiness form.

You remain in my prayers, neighbor.

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/?T13943F77

Is this spam?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?N69721867
 
Hello Andrew,

>Hi Mozz,
>
>Glad to see that I haven't frightened you away with my truthfulness.

I have nothing to fear from your erroneous beliefs. I am pleased to remain and with good intention
and patience, point out your mistakes.

>Is it your belief that an oral tradition is better than a written tradition?

Whether oral or written it is the essence of the message that matters most.

There are many factors to consider here, such as the historical and cultural circumstances and
context. All of the ancient religions and great spiritual movements begin at a point of oral
transmission. There are usually many decades or even hundreds of years until collected written
parchments. Yet the measure of these spiritual paths lies more in the benefits gained through
spiritual practice rather than accuracy of the 'founder's biography'. As you know, even within your
Christian tradition there are a multitude of interpretations as to what is or what is not the
correct approach to Christian practice. The only honest way we can discern the value of the
teachings ourselves is by sincere and genuine putting into practice of that what is written. In
Buddhism we have an excellent and detailed record of teachings passed down from Siddhartha and his
followers through centuries of monastic practice to the present day, with commentaries from many
other enlightened individuals who offer advice and encouragement from their own experience.

I would say to anyone who might feel some interest in buddhist practice to give it a go. Try it for
a while. If it doesn't feel right for you yet then let it go and try something else.
>
>>
>> >This is called a discussion.
>>
>> Respectfully Andrew, you appear to conduct your 'discussions' in a rather adversarial manner (and
>> not only the ones with me). Perhaps you are unconsciously doing so?
>>
>
>I am conscious of being truthful.

>> >Whether I doubt you should not concern you.
>>
>> Why not?
>
>Such concern may prove damaging to your "samsara."

One aspect of samsara can prove no more or less damaging than any other. All samsara is
ultimately illusory.

>
>Would suggest you make up your mind about whether I am passive or active.

Such is your dilemma Andrew - You attempt to cover your truly aggressive intent yet There is quite
clearly an aggressive flavour latent in the content of most of your posts. However, you refuse to
accept your aggressive, intolerant or prejudiced attitudes by adopting the passive persona of
'Servant to the humblest person in the universe'.

Take some responsibility for your own actions.

>This does not seem to bode well for your state of enlightenment.

Respectfully, you appear to understand very little regarding buddhist practice and even less about
people's states of mind.

>> >I see this as a discussion, an activity for information exchange.
>>
>> And here an example of your ambivalence and defensiveness to truly exchange anything of worth.
>> You seem to need to define the paramaters of discussion at it's most basic structural framework -
>> the exchange of information - data - just like computers sharing files.
>
>It would seem that you are unable to see past your computer.

Clearly I can see past my computer to have written the analogy above - why have you chosen another
barbed response?

>Do you have it within you to overcome your difficulties?

What difficullties do you refer to?

>Or will you need help from others?

Are you trying to say that in your opinion I am in need of help?

>> You make a conscious point of leaving out the actual reason for discussions, which is to touch
>> others lives in a meaningful way, to inspire where possible, to share feelings as well as data,
>> and most of all - to allow for the possibility of change in the individual - in both yourself and
>> others.
>
>Imho, such touching and sharing of feelings are best done in person rather than via a computer
>keyboard.

Why? The ability to touch lives is inherent in all forms of communication. Have you never been moved
by something you have read in a book?

>> >You do not believe in God and yet you recognize a "disregard for fairness."
>>
>> I do not call a disregard for fairness a sin. It is a disregard for fairness.

>Then why did you call it a "flagrant" disregard?

Flagrant would indicate that I felt it was quite a serious disregard.

>> >To kill another is unfair.
>>
>> I agree
>>
>
>and thus a sin.

You are deliberately being obtuse here. You know full well what I mean when I say it is unnecessary
to label killing a 'sin' for it to resonate with any moral meaning.
>> >To steal from another is unfair.
>>
>> I agree
>>
>
>and thus a sin.

See above.

>> >To bear false witness regarding another is unfair.
>>
>> I agree, yet none of these moral points need be called 'sin' or indeed have any connection to a
>> God or religion to remain valid.
>>
>
>And yet, folks who do not believe in God, recognize these as sins and have enacted laws to punish
>those who would sin.

Which proves nothing. Sins are seperate from secular morality. It's a fact. They are called 'laws'
not 'sins'.

>> >(Stephen likely will chime in right about here claiming to be unfairly accused of
>> >cyberstalking... this is to be expected because the untruthful will often see truth as being
>> >unfair to them)
>>
>> Stop right there Andrew and take a breath.
>
>It remains an illustrative example about sin and your recognition of it.

It remains an unnecessary one and a highly unskilful provocative choice at that.

>> Was that cheap shot aimed at Stephen (whoever he may be) necessary in our 'discussion'?
>
>It was not a cheap shot.

That is a value judgement we can disagree on and others may draw their own conclusions.

>
>> Was it even a Christian thing to do?
>
>Writing truthfully is a Christian thing.

Are you of the opinion that non-Christians are unable to write truthfully?

>> Can you not let go of things like that?
>
>I have. God will judge.

If you had let go, you would not have brought it up.

>> It does you no credit at all and certainly has the opposite affect of 'glorifying your God'.
>
>I remain obedient to God.

Obedient to your imagination and lack of insight.

>> Could you honestly imagine Jesus behaving in the same way as you did here?
>
>Jesus would be more blunt about the "plank" that is the eye of those who would judge.

So you know what Jesus would say do you?

>> Can you not turn the other cheek instead of stoking the fires that are clearly provocative?
>
>It remains my choice to walk with Jesus where ever His path may take us.

How do you know what direction to take? Do you hear the voice of Jesus speaking to you?

>> You see, this is your passive-aggressive nature unchecked again. Try to take heed my friend.
>
>Why are you fearful?

I am not fearful. Do you believe that I am?

>The wise man knows better than to deny God, who is the Creator.

Buddha was a wise man yet he denied the need to conjure a Creator deity.

>> There is no beginning to time and there will be no end.

>That would make Buddha even more insignificant.

Explain why you think this is so my friend?

>> Explain to me why there is a need to believe in a creator deity?
>
>If there were a need, a case could be made that God is only fiction.

I make that very case.

>Siddhartha felt a need to end human suffering. He was probably dismayed to discover that he did not
>have such power

Siddhartha never once claimed to have the power to end the suffering of others. Infact quite the
opposite - he stressed that it was only through the efforts of the individual in their diligent
practice of the dharma that they would reach liberation from suffering.

> And, so he probably had a need to believe in emptiness in order to escape his disappointment

The above invalidates this assumption.

>Where there is need, there is motivation for fiction.

Ah...hence the Bible.

>> >In truth, our sins are the cause of our suffering.
>> (our suffering is caused by afflictive emotion and ignorance of the truth that all emptiness is
>> form and all form is emptiness)
>>
>One way to seemingly escape suffering is by denying suffering exists.

Buddha neither denied suffering exists nor did he 'seemingly' escape
it. He did liberate himself from it.

>> >Jesus recognized this because He had no sin. The only times He suffered during His time as a
>> >"son of man" was when He took our sins upon Himself.
>> Being a man, Jesus lived in samsaric realm therefore he would not have escaped suffering unless
>> he too had followed the dharma.
>
>Being God, Jesus suffered by choice.

Did Jesus not cry out on the cross 'Father, why have thou forsaken me?' To whom was God talking when
He said this?

>>
>> > First, when He fasted and suffered from hunger as Satan tempted Him. Recall that succumbing to
>> > temptation to eat something forbidden and thereby violating God's One Commandment was how Adam
>> > and Eve sinned .
>> Jesus was most unskilful here. To fast to excess (as buddha himself discovered when first seeking
>> enlightenment) is not the Middle Way.
>
>Without excesses, there can be no "middle way".

Did Jesus learn the wisdom of the middle way from his experience?
>> If a string on a bow is too tight it will break when played, if too loose it will not play at
>> all. The same for how kind or harsh we are with ourselves.
>
>Knowing the right tension comes from the experience of a string that is too tight and too loose.

Agreed.

>>
>> >Second, when He suffered from anger at money changing being conducted at a synagogue. Recall
>> >that the reason for the money changing was the graven images of a god-emperor on the coins. This
>> >is a violation of the first two of God's X Commandments.
>>
>> Anger is an afflictive emotion and not at all conducive to an enlightened state of mind. Jesus
>> would have created negative karma and suffering for himself by giving in to anger.
>
>He chose to take on the suffering which are the wages of sin.

In what practical way did this help others to overcome their suffering? What practices did He lay
down that others my see the benefits in this lifetime? Where is the Christian dharma?

>> >Third, when He suffered from the pain of death as a consequence of the false witnessing by men,
>> >we end up seeing many of the rest of the X Commandments violated (III, VI, VIII, IX, X).
>>
>> I pray Jesus found better circumstances in his next rebirth as a human so he may follow the
>> dharma and reach true liberation from suffering.
>>
>
>Jesus was resurrected and now sits with His Father in heaven. There will be no rebirth. There will
>be a second coming.

Are the thousand years not long gone? Where is he? You must be anxious by now.

>> The difference between Christian theology and Buddhist practice is that whether buddha existed or
>> not is irrelevant.
>
>Your defense of Siddhartha's background would suggest otherwise.

I merely offer the truth.

>> What is of ultimate value is the teachings - the dharma - which has been put into practice by
>> millions of people all over the world, the benefit of which can be experienced by anyone willing
>> to make the effort.
>
>Then why the reverence toward buddha, whom you call "lord" ?

Respect.

>> There is no requirement of 'faith' or 'belief' like Christianity demands.
>
>A Christian is defined as one who has accepted Christ as his/her Lord and Savior.

>A buddhist is defined as one who believes that following buddha will end their suffering.

>Does buddhism demand "faith" in buddha's teachings?

No. A practitioner may see the benefit of the dharma for themselves.

>> One can see for oneself the direct benefits of buddhist practice in action.
>>
>
>One can see for oneself the truth in God's word.

There is no such thing as God.

>> >Does anyone have a recording of what Jesus said?
>>
>> No
>
>Therefore no evidence.

I agree. There is no evidence that Christ said anything.

>Buddha is a myth for the anti-christians. You claim that buddha's teaching are ultimately true.
>They ignore you because they know that Buddha is a myth.

If what you say were true, anyone's choice to ignore me is up to them. The benefit of the dharma can
be attested to regardless of whether buddha were a myth or not.

>Jesus has said that He is the truth.
>
>Has Buddha ever made this claim?

The buddha said to test everything said to be true from any teacher, including himself. The truth of
his teachings are example of his validity.

>Since you claim that the Dalai Lama has already reached enlightenment, why does he keep
>being reborn?

The Dalai Lamas are the embodiment of Chenrezig, the Bodhisattva of Compassion. He is a highly
realized practitioner who has vowed to continually deliberately take rebirths in samsara until all
beings are freed from suffering and have reached enlightenment.

>> >> Christianity is on the wane and Islam on the rise...
>> >
>> >Not if their followers continue to commit suicide-bombings and other acts of terrorism.
>>
>> Most Muslims are peaceful and condemn the minority who perpetrate these atrocities. Why do you
>> choose to discount the vast majority to high light the minority? Imbalance again Andrew?
>> Disingenuous?
>>
>
>Simply being truthful.

Are you saying that the majority of Muslims are suicide bombers and/or terrorists?

Also Andrew, Do you believe the world was literally created in 6 days and on the 7th God rested?

Do you believe that Noah built an ark large enough to save two of every animal from God's Flood?

Do you believe that the Tower Of Babel was built, and it was tall enough to almost reach Heaven?

Do you believe Lots wife was literally turned into a pillar of salt?

Do you believe Jonah was eaten by and survived in the belly of a whale?

Respectfully,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back