Was Jesus Compassionate

[Mozz]

Hello Andrew,

>> I cannot 'disprove' God as in the same way you cannot 'prove' he exists either.
>
>In truth, the ways of proving and disproving are not the same. Disproving what is untrue is much
>easier than proving what is true.

Can you give me an example?

>> There is no God.
>
>Tell Him that when you die and see if He will take it as a valid excuse for your sins.

I do not offer any excuse for my so called 'sins' as there is no such thing.

>> Relax - No need to apologize. Your 'feeling' was in error again. You have not hurt me in the
>> slightest you will be relieved to hear.
>>
>
>Your language betrays your feelings.

You are beginning to sound like the role model for Darth Vader. "Your feelings betray you Luke! Give
in to the Dark Side!"

>
>> >"judgment" here is one from an observer rather than from a judge.
>>
>> nevertheless, whatever you call yourself you are casting a value judgement.
>>
>
>Is that what buddha has taught you?

No, it was I 'observe'.

>> >> What do you mean he doesn't know himself?
>> >
>> >Simply that.
>> >
>> >> Has he said this?
>> >
>> >No. But he has demonstrated it.
>>
>> How?
>>
>
>By wandering about aimlessly.

Has he said he is wandering aimlessly?

>"String" theory.

Again, not something millions of others haven't hypothesised in countless sci-fi books years ago.

Can you give me something less vague? Something I can go 'Ah! That is miost definately Andrew's gift
of truth in action'?

>> >> She sounds wise. The dharma is clearly with her.
>> >>
>> >
>> >I wouldn't know.
>>
>> I thought you had the gift of truth discernment.
>>
>
>I do. Dharma is not the truth.

Tell your mother-in-law who you love that. If you truly love her as much as you claim to, you must
do everything to save her surely??? Come on Andrew!!! Do it the name of Christ! Save her soul!

>> >Sorry, it is the best I can do.
>>
>> Thanks for being honest.
>>
>
>The praises all belong to God. May I continue to glorify Him
.....rather than glorifying your 'own views on what is or isn't truthful according to you/God (being
the same of course as your gift from Him is effectively His pronouncements through you)'

A truly humble seeker of truth through Christ (and I have met such individuals) never claim 'special
gifts from God' and remain level and grounded in reality.

>> Infact I did find the 'parallels' you speak of. I realised though that I was infact projecting
>> onto the framework of a beautiful myth, as opposed to a reality.
>>
>
>It sounds like you were unable to "let go."

To suspend my disbelief you mean? Yes.

>This does not bode well for your dharma.

Dharma practice does not require the suspension of disbelief. The benefits from practice can be
directly experienced by all.

>> >> >> Have you asked him why he gets angry?
>> >> >
>> >> >I have in the past.
>> >>
>> >> And what did he say?
>> >
>> >The discussion annoys him because they seem never-ending.
>>
>> I know how he feels! ;-)
>>
>That must be why you remind me of him ;-)

I am happy to be in your father's company from what you have said about him. He sounds like an
'authentic' person who doesn't hide away in comforting fantasies about life.

>What is eloquence without substance?

See Bob's posts for 'substance' also.

>Is it your claim that only those who have realized emptiness are compassionate?

No. Although 'all' who are realized beings express compassion for all sentient beings.

>Were you there when he was growing up to inventory all his childhood nicknames?

You are being wilfully pedantic here and avoiding the main point, which is that this mentally ill
individual, (who later benefited from his medication and counselling) thought he absolutely knew
the TRUTH that he was Jesus Christ, son of God, come again to save the world. He had NO DOUBT about
it at all.

You remind me of him before he took his medication. So certain of what is plainly fantasy.

>Seems you depend on others to help you find the truth.

Is there anything wrong with that?

>> The psychiatrist was the expert judge.
>>
>
>Are you speaking from firsthand experience?

I was working as a counselor in tandem with the psychiatrist to help this individual, so yes.

>> It is wise to remain open to change.
>>
>
>Is that what buddha has taught you?

Yes, all things change. It is ironically the one thing that you may always rely on - that all
things change.

>Try harder.

If you were truly interested in the dharma, you would ask pertinent questions in a spirit of
openess. Like Julie has been doing in private emails.

>"...can clearly see the many times I have pointed out that you in fact have no gift of truth
>discernment..."
>
>Obsessed folks typically are unaware of their obsessions.

You have no gift of truth discernment, regardless of whether you think I am obsessed or not.

>Would we be discussing this if I were truly Godless?

Yes, because you are under the delusion that God is real.

>> >Try being truthful.
>>
>> Always
>
>Try harder.

No need. I am always truthful.

>> >> A perfect example of your lack of actual 'seeing truth'. I have in fact travelled rather
>> >> extensively.
>> >
>> >Not enough if you have not witnessed true clairvoyance.
>>
>> Clutching at straws Andrew?

>No.
>
>> >What error, Mozz?
>>
>> You got it wrong!

>Hardly.

You will have to take my word for it. You were mistaken.

>This does not bode well for your dharma.

Explain why?

>> >Actually, a characterization of your ad hominems.
>>
>> ...and a judgement.
>>
>You are simply being argumentative.

Once again, respectfully, you are mistaken.

 

[Mozz]

>^If God were fiction, it should be easy for you to disprove Him.
>
>Your logic is flawed. If you make a statement about something existing, it is incumbent on you to
>prove the existence of that object, not on the person who doubts to disprove it. That is in fact
>the basis of our "innocent until proven guilty" jurisprudence in the US. Prosecutors are required
>to prove that a particular crime was committed by a particular person. The defendant, who is
>denying the charge, is not required to prove innocence.
>
>Unicorns are a fiction. Yet no one can prove that they don't or haven't existed. All we know is
>that we have no evidence of them except legends. Shoukl I believe in unicorns because it is
>impossible to disprove them?

I think Richard very eloquently and substantialy exposes your erroneous thinking here Andrew.
Reflect on it.

>^> >If I did not have the gift of truth discernment, I would not have been able to "see" the ^>
>>2PD approach. The link that I have provided supplies the "evidence" that there are those ^> >who
>see the truth in the 2PD approach and there are those who do not. ^> ^> Many people have ideas in
>life. Sometimes these ideas are good, some ^> are not so good. To have an idea is not proof of a
>God. ^ ^You are missing the point.
>
>It's a stupid point. All you have demonstrated that some people like your idea, and some people
>don't. It doesn't prove that your is is right or wrong, and is certainly not evidence of "truth
>discernment." Your statement demonstrates that you have a ridiculously high opinion of yourself.
>There is no such thing as a gift of "truth discernment." All any of us have is experience and
>acquired knowledge and reasoning ability. None of us is an infallible truth detector. Or do you
>have a polygraph machine built into your torso?

Again, I cannot find fault in Richard's logic.

Respecfully,

 

[Dr. Andrew B. C]

Richard Lucarno wrote:

> On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 21:41:10 -0500, "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> ^Mozz wrote: ^ ^> Hello Andrew, ^> ^> >I am glad we agree that there is only one truth. ^> ^> It
> stands to reason, the truth is the truth. (Reality; actuality. ^> that which is considered to be
> the supreme reality and to have the ^> ultimate meaning and value of existence.) ie - not the
> fiction that is ^> the idea of God. ^ ^If God were fiction, it should be easy for you to
> disprove Him.
>
> Your logic is flawed. If you make a statement about something existing, it is incumbent on you to
> prove the existence of that object, not on the person who doubts to disprove it.

By your participation in this discussion, you make a statement that you exist.

So according to *your* logic, it is incumbent on you to prove your own existence.

Afterall, you could be someone's sock.

Would be more than happen to resume this discussion with you when you prove *your* existence.

Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

Andrew

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

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

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

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

 

[Dr. Andrew B. C]

Hi Mozz,

Mozz wrote:

> Hello Andrew,
>
> >> I cannot 'disprove' God as in the same way you cannot 'prove' he exists either.
> >
> >In truth, the ways of proving and disproving are not the same. Disproving what is untrue is much
> >easier than proving what is true.
>
> Can you give me an example?

Yes.

Here is a statement that is untrue:

"The world is flat like a pancake. You can go to the edge of it and fall off."

Here is a statement on the same subject that is true:

"The world is spherical like a ball."

The former is proven to be untrue simply by traveling to where the edge is supposed to be and not
falling off.

The latter can not be proven until you launch yourself in space and look back.

> >> There is no God.
> >
> >Tell Him that when you die and see if He will take it as a valid excuse for your sins.
>
> I do not offer any excuse for my so called 'sins' as there is no such thing.
>

It is hard to imagine that you ever understood the Bible since you deny the existence of:

(1) Sins
(2) Prophecy (clairvoyance)
(3) God

> >> Relax - No need to apologize. Your 'feeling' was in error again. You have not hurt me in the
> >> slightest you will be relieved to hear.
> >>
> >Your language betrays your feelings.
>
> You are beginning to sound like the role model for Darth Vader. "Your feelings betray you Luke!
> Give in to the Dark Side!"
>

Interesting digression.

Do you believe in the existence of evil, Mozz?

> >> >"judgment" here is one from an observer rather than from a judge.
> >>
> >> nevertheless, whatever you call yourself you are casting a value judgement.
> >>
> >Is that what buddha has taught you?
>
> No, it was I 'observe'.
>

This does not bode well for your dharma.

> >> >> What do you mean he doesn't know himself?
> >> >
> >> >Simply that.
> >> >
> >> >> Has he said this?
> >> >
> >> >No. But he has demonstrated it.
> >>
> >> How?
> >>
> >
> >By wandering about aimlessly.
>
> Has he said he is wandering aimlessly?
>

Only the blind would need such affirmation.

>
> >"String" theory.
>
> Again, not something millions of others haven't hypothesised in countless sci-fi books years ago.
>
> Can you give me something less vague? Something I can go 'Ah! That is miost definately Andrew's
> gift of truth in action'?
>

Truth is not a gift.

> >> >> She sounds wise. The dharma is clearly with her.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >I wouldn't know.
> >>
> >> I thought you had the gift of truth discernment.
> >>
> >I do. Dharma is not the truth.
>
> Tell your mother-in-law who you love that.

She knows it already.

> If you truly love her as much as you claim to, you must do everything to save her surely???

I do not have the power to save her.

> Come on Andrew!!! Do it the name of Christ! Save her soul!
>

In truth, I do not have that power.

> >> >Sorry, it is the best I can do.
> >>
> >> Thanks for being honest.
> >>
> >
> >The praises all belong to God. May I continue to glorify Him
> .....rather than glorifying your 'own views on what is or isn't truthful according to you/God
> (being the same of course as your gift from Him is effectively His pronouncements through you)'
>

You sound confused, Mozz.

> A truly humble seeker of truth through Christ (and I have met such individuals) never claim
> 'special gifts from God' and remain level and grounded in reality.

Sounds like you are having difficulties reconciling your beliefs with reality.

> >> Infact I did find the 'parallels' you speak of. I realised though that I was infact projecting
> >> onto the framework of a beautiful myth, as opposed to a reality.
> >>
> >>It sounds like you were unable to "let go."
>
> To suspend my disbelief you mean? Yes.
>

Sounds like your pride got in the way.

> >This does not bode well for your dharma.
>
> Dharma practice does not require the suspension of disbelief. The benefits from practice can be
> directly experienced by all.
>

It remains your choice to believe what you want to believe. Anyone can exercise that choice and it
is certainly easier that choosing to believe what you do not want to believe.

> >> >> >> Have you asked him why he gets angry?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >I have in the past.
> >> >>
> >> >> And what did he say?
> >> >
> >> >The discussion annoys him because they seem never-ending.
> >>
> >> I know how he feels! ;-)
> >>
> >That must be why you remind me of him ;-)
>
> I am happy to be in your father's company from what you have said about him. He sounds like an
> 'authentic' person who doesn't hide away in comforting fantasies about life.

Is that how you see yourself?

If so, your handle betrays your delusion.

> >What is eloquence without substance?
>
> See Bob's posts for 'substance' also.

Don't find any.

Would you ever tell a person who has witnessed firsthand the destruction of the WT. towers on
3/1/2001 that you know more about what s/he saw simply from reading written accounts of it?

> >Is it your claim that only those who have realized emptiness are compassionate?
>
> No. Although 'all' who are realized beings express compassion for all sentient beings.

Ok, I will take your word for it.

> >Were you there when he was growing up to inventory all his childhood nicknames?
>
> You are being wilfully pedantic here and avoiding the main point, which is that this mentally ill
> individual, (who later benefited from his medication and counselling) thought he absolutely knew
> the TRUTH that he was Jesus Christ, son of God, come again to save the world. He had NO DOUBT
> about it at all.
>

And if this individual, claimed he was Siddhartha reincarnated, would you feel the same way?

>
> You remind me of him before he took his medication. So certain of what is plainly fantasy.
>

The same could be said of you and your dharma.

> >Seems you depend on others to help you find the truth.
>
> Is there anything wrong with that?

It contradicts your earlier assertions.

> >> The psychiatrist was the expert judge.
> >>
> >Are you speaking from firsthand experience?
>
> I was working as a counselor in tandem with the psychiatrist to help this individual, so yes.
>

It is my experience that those who work in the mental health profession have the greatest need for
its services.

> >> It is wise to remain open to change.
> >>
> >Is that what buddha has taught you?
>
> Yes, all things change. It is ironically the one thing that you may always rely on - that all
> things change.
>

Truth does not change.

> >Try harder.
>
> If you were truly interested in the dharma, you would ask pertinent questions in a spirit of
> openess. Like Julie has been doing in private emails.

My questions have been pertinent to the discernment of truth.

> >"...can clearly see the many times I have pointed out that you in fact have no gift of truth
> >discernment..."
> >
> >Obsessed folks typically are unaware of their obsessions.
>
> You have no gift of truth discernment, regardless of whether you think I am obsessed or not.

Does my "gift" threaten you?

> >Would we be discussing this if I were truly Godless?
>
> Yes, because you are under the delusion that God is real.
>

Only one of us suffers from delusions. Only God knows which one.

> >> >Try being truthful.
> >>
> >> Always
> >
> >Try harder.
>
> No need. I am always truthful.

Really?

Why was your father's ring important to you?

> >> >> A perfect example of your lack of actual 'seeing truth'. I have in fact travelled rather
> >> >> extensively.
> >> >
> >> >Not enough if you have not witnessed true clairvoyance.
> >>
> >> Clutching at straws Andrew?
>
> >No.
> >
> >> >What error, Mozz?
> >>
> >> You got it wrong!
>
> >Hardly.
>
> You will have to take my word for it. You were mistaken.
>
> >This does not bode well for your dharma.
>
> Explain why?
>

You are wandering around aimlessly.

>
> >> >Actually, a characterization of your ad hominems.
> >>
> >> ...and a judgement.
> >>
> >You are simply being argumentative.
>
> Once again, respectfully, you are mistaken.
>

Again thanks for the kisses

Remember, when you get that letter from the Dalai Lama telling you to stop representing buddhism,
you can always turn to Christ for salvation.

You remain in my prayers, Mozz.

Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

Andrew

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

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

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

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

 

[Dr. Andrew B. C]

Mozz wrote:

> >^If God were fiction, it should be easy for you to disprove Him.
> >
> >Your logic is flawed. If you make a statement about something existing, it is incumbent on you to
> >prove the existence of that object, not on the person who doubts to disprove it. That is in fact
> >the basis of our "innocent until proven guilty" jurisprudence in the US. Prosecutors are required
> >to prove that a particular crime was committed by a particular person. The defendant, who is
> >denying the charge, is not required to prove innocence.
> >
> >Unicorns are a fiction. Yet no one can prove that they don't or haven't existed. All we know is
> >that we have no evidence of them except legends. Shoukl I believe in unicorns because it is
> >impossible to disprove them?
>
> I think Richard very eloquently and substantialy exposes your erroneous thinking here Andrew.
> Reflect on it.
>

What I see is your desperation, Mozz.

>
> >^> >If I did not have the gift of truth discernment, I would not have been able to "see" the ^>
> >>2PD approach. The link that I have provided supplies the "evidence" that there are those ^> >who
> >see the truth in the 2PD approach and there are those who do not. ^> ^> Many people have ideas in
> >life. Sometimes these ideas are good, some ^> are not so good. To have an idea is not proof of a
> >God. ^ ^You are missing the point.
> >
> >It's a stupid point. All you have demonstrated that some people like your idea, and some people
> >don't. It doesn't prove that your is is right or wrong, and is certainly not evidence of "truth
> >discernment." Your statement demonstrates that you have a ridiculously high opinion of yourself.
> >There is no such thing as a gift of "truth discernment." All any of us have is experience and
> >acquired knowledge and reasoning ability. None of us is an infallible truth detector. Or do you
> >have a polygraph machine built into your torso?
>
> Again, I cannot find fault in Richard's logic.
>

That's because you are unable to discern the truth.

>
> Respecfully,
>

You remain in my prayers, Mozz, whom I love.

Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

Andrew

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

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

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

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

 

[Steve]

On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 18:35:19 -0500, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
(in article <[email protected]>):

> Richard Lucarno wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 21:41:10 -0500, "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> ^Mozz wrote: ^ ^> Hello Andrew, ^> ^> >I am glad we agree that there is only one truth. ^> ^> It
>> stands to reason, the truth is the truth. (Reality; actuality. ^> that which is considered to be
>> the supreme reality and to have the ^> ultimate meaning and value of existence.) ie - not the
>> fiction that is ^> the idea of God. ^ ^If God were fiction, it should be easy for you to
>> disprove Him.
>>
>> Your logic is flawed. If you make a statement about something existing, it is incumbent on you to
>> prove the existence of that object, not on the person who doubts to disprove it.
>
> By your participation in this discussion, you make a statement that you exist.
>
> So according to *your* logic, it is incumbent on you to prove your own existence.

Cogito, ergo sum.

--
Steve

Weeding the Lord's Vineyards Since 2003

 

[Mozz]

>> I think Richard very eloquently and substantialy exposes your erroneous thinking here Andrew.
>> Reflect on it.
>>
>
>What I see is your desperation, Mozz.

How strange, as I am not in the least desperate.

>> Again, I cannot find fault in Richard's logic.
>>
>
>That's because you are unable to discern the truth.

Regardless of your opinion, there is wisdom in Richard's post for those who do not fear
free thinking.

Peace be with you my friend,

Mozz x

 

[Bob]

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

> Hi Mozz,
>
> Mozz wrote:
>
>>Hello Andrew,
>
>>>>I cannot 'disprove' God as in the same way you cannot 'prove' he exists either.
>>>
>>>In truth, the ways of proving and disproving are not the same. Disproving what is untrue is much
>>>easier than proving what is true.
>>
>>Can you give me an example?
>
> Yes.
>
> Here is a statement that is untrue:
>
> "The world is flat like a pancake. You can go to the edge of it and fall off."
>
> Here is a statement on the same subject that is true:
>
> "The world is spherical like a ball."
>
> The former is proven to be untrue simply by traveling to where the edge is supposed to be and not
> falling off.
>
> The latter can not be proven until you launch yourself in space and look back.

Sorry. Ancient Greeks had *proven* the sphericity of the earth and calculated its size with
reasonable accuracy by 500 B.C. Thales, Aristotle and Eratosthenes all offered reasoned notions for
shape and size.

Eratosthenes (276-195 B.C.) used the Sun for his calculations after he observed:
1) The sun shone all the way down a well in Syene when a shadow was cast in Alexandria (A measured
angle differential of 7.2 degrees to vertical).
2) The distance from Alexandria to Syene (due south) was 800km.
3) A full circle is 360 degrees of angle.
4) The ratio of 360 degrees to 7.2 degrees must be equal to the ratio of the circumference of the
Earth to the distance between Alexandria and Syene. He calculated the circumference to be
40,000km (within 1%).

>>>What is eloquence without substance?
>>
>>See Bob's posts for 'substance' also.
>
> Don't find any.

*Can't* find any. Mustn't. Find. Any. Can't. Find. Any...

For to do so demolishes the Chung house of fundamentalist, wacko, anti-scientific cards.

> Would you ever tell a person who has witnessed firsthand the destruction of the WT. towers on
> 9/11/2001 that you know more about what s/he saw simply from reading written accounts of it?

What a profoundly silly non sequitur. Slip sliding away...

And what about people who believe the bible to be a literal account of the events recounted in it
when few were written by eyewitnesses.

> It is my experience that those who work in the mental health profession have the greatest need for
> its services.

Here's Chung's "gift of truth discernment" at work again. <LOL>

>>>"...can clearly see the many times I have pointed out that you in fact have no gift of truth
>>>discernment..."
>>>
>>>Obsessed folks typically are unaware of their obsessions.
>>
>>You have no gift of truth discernment, regardless of whether you think I am obsessed or not.
>
> Does my "gift" threaten you?

<LOL> The refuge of the cornered. Change the subject. Passive-aggressive attack. Put the
other person in the defensive. <LOL> Except it doesn't work very well with Mozz. Got Chung's
number, he does.

Bob

 

[Mozz]

Hello Andrew,

>Here is a statement that is untrue:
>
>"The world is flat like a pancake. You can go to the edge of it and fall off."
>
>Here is a statement on the same subject that is true:
>
>"The world is spherical like a ball."
>
>The former is proven to be untrue simply by traveling to where the edge is supposed to be and not
>falling off.
>
>The latter can not be proven until you launch yourself in space and look back.

Your examples rely on us already knowing the truth that the earth is indeed round. In the case of
the existence or non-existence of God we have no 'verifiable' evidence either way, as we are not
dealing with something demonstrable in the nebulous realm of metaphysics. The arguement for or
against God's existence can never be proven, merely debated.

>It is hard to imagine that you ever understood the Bible since you deny the existence of:
>
>(1) Sins

Ok, tell me where I have misunderstood - I understood sins to mean 'a transgression against God's
law' - 'and theologically; seperation from God'. As I no longer believe in God, it stands to reason
that I do not believe in sin. I accept the term 'sin' may sometimes be appropriated for secular
cultural useage, as in the breaking of a 'moral' law etc, but that is a different context to linking
the term directly with the belief in God.

>(2) Prophecy (clairvoyance)

Honestly, I remain open minded and I am prepared to be convinced that both prophecy and clairvoyance
'may' be possible. However, I have yet to be shown an example of either that would satisfy me of
their authenticity.

>(3) God

I no longer believe in the existence of God. I accept that you do though Andrew, and I respect your
right to do so.

>> You are beginning to sound like the role model for Darth Vader. "Your feelings betray you Luke!
>> Give in to the Dark Side!"
>>
>
>Interesting digression.

>Do you believe in the existence of evil, Mozz?

I believe that one can label very bad things 'evil' , so in that context I do. However I do not
believe in a 'personalised organising principle or entity' directing evil such as Satan.

>> >Is that what buddha has taught you?
>>
>> No, it was what I observed.
>>
>
>This does not bode well for your dharma.

With respect, I would heed your warning if I was satisfied that you understood the slightest aspect
of dharma practice, however, you do not.

>> Has he said he is wandering aimlessly?
>>
>
>Only the blind would need such affirmation.

I asked that question as I am curious as to how much you understand Taoism in regards to your
father. In Taoism there is a central principle of simple non resistance, of 'going with the flow' of
life, perhaps your father is adhering to this ancient wisdom, and it is this that you perceive as
aimless (valueless) wandering?

>> >The praises all belong to God. May I continue to glorify Him
>> .....rather than glorifying your 'own views on what is or isn't truthful according to you/God
>> (being the same of course as your gift from Him is effectively His pronouncements through you)'
>>
>
>You sound confused, Mozz.

If that is what you observe, so be it. From my side however I remain firm and clear.

>> A truly humble seeker of truth through Christ (and I have met such individuals) never claim
>> 'special gifts from God' and remain level and grounded in reality.
>
>Sounds like you are having difficulties reconciling your beliefs with reality.

The Dharma is firmly grounded in reality.

>
>It remains your choice to believe what you want to believe. Anyone can exercise that choice and it
>is certainly easier that choosing to believe what you do not want to believe.

I agree.

>Is that how you see yourself?
>
>If so, your handle betrays your delusion.

What do you mean when you say 'handle'?

>> >What is eloquence without substance?
>>
>> See Bob's posts for 'substance' also.
>
>Don't find any.

I disagree.

>Would you ever tell a person who has witnessed firsthand the destruction of the WT. towers on
>9/11/2001 that you know more about what s/he saw simply from reading written accounts of it?

I do not see the relevance of your example? Can you elaborate?

>> >Is it your claim that only those who have realized emptiness are compassionate?
>>
>> No. Although 'all' who are realized beings express compassion for all sentient beings.
>
>Ok, I will take your word for it.

Thank you.

>> You are being wilfully pedantic here and avoiding the main point, which is that this mentally ill
>> individual, (who later benefited from his medication and counselling) thought he absolutely knew
>> the TRUTH that he was Jesus Christ, son of God, come again to save the world. He had NO DOUBT
>> about it at all.
>>
>
>And if this individual, claimed he was Siddhartha reincarnated, would you feel the same way?

Yes of course.

>> You remind me of him before he took his medication. So certain of what is plainly fantasy.
>>
>
>The same could be said of you and your dharma.

The efficacy of the dharma can be personally verified by the individual. No need for 'belief'.

>> >Seems you depend on others to help you find the truth.
>>
>> Is there anything wrong with that?
>
>It contradicts your earlier assertions.

How so?

>It is my experience that those who work in the mental health profession have the greatest need for
>its services.

We must be fortunate then here in the UK, as in my experience those who work in the mental health
profession here are generally extremely well balanced individuals.

>> Yes, all things change. It is ironically the one thing that you may always rely on - that all
>> things change.
>>
>
>Truth does not change.

The truth is that all things are in flux.

>My questions have been pertinent to the discernment of truth.

Are you satisfied that you have fully discerned the truth of the dharma now?

>Does my "gift" threaten you?

I feel sorry for you and wish that I could help.

>> No need. I am always truthful.
>
>Really?
>
>Why was your father's ring important to you?

Can you remind me of the context of our previous discussion regarding the subject of my deceased
father's ring please Andrew, as I have no memory of the discussion at all? If there has indeed been
no previous conversation I would appreciate an explanation as to how you came about that information
before I consider answering such a personal and sensitive subject.

>You are wandering around aimlessly.

My aim is enlightenment, my path is the dharma.

>Remember, when you get that letter from the Dalai Lama telling you to stop representing buddhism,
>you can always turn to Christ for salvation.

Is that an example of your 'clairvoyance' Andrew? I will tell you as soon as His Holiness'
letter arrives.

May you reach enlightenment swiftly to benefit all sentient beings.

Mozz x

 

[Mozz]

Hi Bob,

I just wanted to say thanks for your posts, the info you supply has been really interesting reading.
I appreciate it.

>Sorry. Ancient Greeks had *proven* the sphericity of the earth and calculated its size with
>reasonable accuracy by 500 B.C. Thales, Aristotle and Eratosthenes all offered reasoned notions for
>shape and size.
>
>Eratosthenes (276-195 B.C.) used the Sun for his calculations after he observed:
>1) The sun shone all the way down a well in Syene when a shadow was cast in Alexandria (A measured
> angle differential of 7.2 degrees to vertical).
>2) The distance from Alexandria to Syene (due south) was 800km.
>3) A full circle is 360 degrees of angle.
>4) The ratio of 360 degrees to 7.2 degrees must be equal to the ratio of the circumference of the
> Earth to the distance between Alexandria and Syene. He calculated the circumference to be
> 40,000km (within 1%).

I never knew that before. That's amazing stuff...those guys were really something!

>> Would you ever tell a person who has witnessed firsthand the destruction of the WT. towers on
>> 9/11/2001 that you know more about what s/he saw simply from reading written accounts of it?
>
>What a profoundly silly non sequitur. Slip sliding away...
>
>And what about people who believe the bible to be a literal account of the events recounted in it
>when few were written by eyewitnesses.

Another very apt point Bob.

>> It is my experience that those who work in the mental health profession have the greatest need
>> for its services.
>
>Here's Chung's "gift of truth discernment" at work again. <LOL>

>> Does my "gift" threaten you?
>
><LOL> The refuge of the cornered. Change the subject. Passive-aggressive attack. Put the
>other person in the defensive. <LOL> Except it doesn't work very well with Mozz. Got Chung's
>number, he does.
>
>Bob

Thanks for playing Bob! ;-)

Mozz x

 

[John]

On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 04:46:17 +0000, Mozz <[email protected]> wrote:

>In the case of the existence or non-existence of God we have no 'verifiable' evidence either way,
>as we are not dealing with something demonstrable in the nebulous realm of metaphysics. The
>arguement for or against God's existence can never be proven, merely debated.

In another posting you stated:

>Yes, because you are under the delusion that God is real.

Hello Mozz. I am curious to know how you justify making these two statements as the seem to reveal
an inconsistent approach. In the first above you state that the argument for or against God's
existence can never be proven, merely debated. But then you equate belief in God with delusion.
So......how can it be deluded to believe either of two mutually exclusive propositions, neither of
which can be proven?

I think you have betrayed yourself in this regard in several other postings as well, such as your
repeated use of the phrase "conjure up a God".

John

 

[Dr. Andrew B. C]

Mozz wrote:
>
> >> I think Richard very eloquently and substantialy exposes your erroneous thinking here Andrew.
> >> Reflect on it.
> >>
> >
> >What I see is your desperation, Mozz.
>
> How strange, as I am not in the least desperate.

Then there is a discrepancy between what I observe and how you claim to feel.

> >> Again, I cannot find fault in Richard's logic.
> >>
> >
> >That's because you are unable to discern the truth.
>
> Regardless of your opinion, there is wisdom in Richard's post for those who do not fear free
> thinking.

I do not fear free thinking and yet I do not see wisdom in Richard's post.

> Peace be with you my friend,
>
> Mozz x

And also with you.

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/?A26B16397

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

 

[Dr. Andrew B. C]

Hi dear Mozz,

Would suggest you stick to this thread and try really hard to not be distracted by the
obsessive weaknesses of others such as Bob Pastorio and Steve@nospam whose words serve only to
set traps for you.

Take this simply as "a word to the wise..."

Mozz wrote:
>
> Hello Andrew,
>
> >Here is a statement that is untrue:
> >
> >"The world is flat like a pancake. You can go to the edge of it and fall off."
> >
> >Here is a statement on the same subject that is true:
> >
> >"The world is spherical like a ball."
> >
> >The former is proven to be untrue simply by traveling to where the edge is supposed to be and not
> >falling off.
> >
> >The latter can not be proven until you launch yourself in space and look back.
>
> Your examples rely on us already knowing the truth that the earth is indeed round.

You seem unable to discern the truth on your own so all examples will have been chosen to accomodate
your lack.

> In the case of the existence or non-existence of God we have no 'verifiable' evidence either way,
> as we are not dealing with something demonstrable in the nebulous realm of metaphysics.

Then according to your own beliefs, you are on very shaky ground to call my belief in God a
"delusion."

> The arguement for or against God's existence can never be proven, merely debated.

Only God knows whether your statement is true or not.

> >It is hard to imagine that you ever understood the Bible since you deny the existence of:
> >
> >(1) Sins
>
> Ok, tell me where I have misunderstood - I understood sins to mean 'a transgression against God's
> law' - 'and theologically; seperation from God'. As I no longer believe in God, it stands to
> reason that I do not believe in sin. I accept the term 'sin' may sometimes be appropriated for
> secular cultural useage, as in the breaking of a 'moral' law etc, but that is a different context
> to linking the term directly with the belief in God.

Sins are independent of belief in God.

> >(2) Prophecy (clairvoyance)
>
> Honestly, I remain open minded and I am prepared to be convinced that both prophecy and
> clairvoyance 'may' be possible.

I am glad you see the wisdom in revising your position.

> However, I have yet to be shown an example of either that would satisfy me of their authenticity.

If you truly were a truth seeker, you would not be waiting "to be shown."

> >(3) God
>
> I no longer believe in the existence of God. I accept that you do though Andrew, and I respect
> your right to do so.

...as I respect your choice to turn your back on God.

> >> You are beginning to sound like the role model for Darth Vader. "Your feelings betray you Luke!
> >> Give in to the Dark Side!"
> >>
> >
> >Interesting digression.
>
> >Do you believe in the existence of evil, Mozz?
>
> I believe that one can label very bad things 'evil' , so in that context I do.

Do you believe that a sentient being can be evil, Mozz?

> However I do not believe in a 'personalised organising principle or entity' directing evil such
> as Satan.

Not a surprise to me. To believe in Satan implies a belief in God.

> >> >Is that what buddha has taught you?
> >>
> >> No, it was what I observed.
> >>
> >
> >This does not bode well for your dharma.
>
> With respect, I would heed your warning if I was satisfied that you understood the slightest
> aspect of dharma practice, however, you do not.

It was not a warning but an observation.

> >> Has he said he is wandering aimlessly?
> >>
> >
> >Only the blind would need such affirmation.
>
> I asked that question as I am curious as to how much you understand Taoism in regards to your
> father. In Taoism there is a central principle of simple non resistance, of 'going with the flow'
> of life, perhaps your father is adhering to this ancient wisdom, and it is this that you perceive
> as aimless (valueless) wandering?

It could be. The same could be said of your dharma.

> >> >The praises all belong to God. May I continue to glorify Him
> >> .....rather than glorifying your 'own views on what is or isn't truthful according to you/God
> >> (being the same of course as your gift from Him is effectively His pronouncements through you)'
> >>
> >
> >You sound confused, Mozz.
>
> If that is what you observe, so be it. From my side however I remain firm and clear.

Yet another discrepancy between what I observe and what you claim to feel.

> >> A truly humble seeker of truth through Christ (and I have met such individuals) never claim
> >> 'special gifts from God' and remain level and grounded in reality.
> >
> >Sounds like you are having difficulties reconciling your beliefs with reality.
>
> The Dharma is firmly grounded in reality.

Not from my vantage point.

> >
> >It remains your choice to believe what you want to believe. Anyone can exercise that choice and
> >it is certainly easier that choosing to believe what you do not want to believe.
>
> I agree.
>
> >Is that how you see yourself?
> >
> >If so, your handle betrays your delusion.
>
> What do you mean when you say 'handle'?

Mozz([email protected])

> >> >What is eloquence without substance?
> >>
> >> See Bob's posts for 'substance' also.
> >
> >Don't find any.
>
> I disagree.

Your perogative.

> >Would you ever tell a person who has witnessed firsthand the destruction of the WT. towers on
> >9/11/2001 that you know more about what s/he saw simply from reading written accounts of it?
>
> I do not see the relevance of your example? Can you elaborate?

Seeing is believing.

> >> >Is it your claim that only those who have realized emptiness are compassionate?
> >>
> >> No. Although 'all' who are realized beings express compassion for all sentient beings.
> >
> >Ok, I will take your word for it.
>
> Thank you.
>
> >> You are being wilfully pedantic here and avoiding the main point, which is that this mentally
> >> ill individual, (who later benefited from his medication and counselling) thought he absolutely
> >> knew the TRUTH that he was Jesus Christ, son of God, come again to save the world. He had NO
> >> DOUBT about it at all.
> >>
> >
> >And if this individual, claimed he was Siddhartha reincarnated, would you feel the same way?
>
> Yes of course.

You would feel that reincarnation were impossible?

> >> You remind me of him before he took his medication. So certain of what is plainly fantasy.
> >>
> >
> >The same could be said of you and your dharma.
>
> The efficacy of the dharma can be personally verified by the individual. No need for 'belief'.

The same could be said for prayer to God.

> >> >Seems you depend on others to help you find the truth.
> >>
> >> Is there anything wrong with that?
> >
> >It contradicts your earlier assertions.
>
> How so?

You have asserted previously that you do not need others to reach enlightenment.

> >It is my experience that those who work in the mental health profession have the greatest need
> >for its services.
>
> We must be fortunate then here in the UK, as in my experience those who work in the mental health
> profession here are generally extremely well balanced individuals.

You would not be an unbiased observer here.

> >> Yes, all things change. It is ironically the one thing that you may always rely on - that all
> >> things change.
> >>
> >
> >Truth does not change.
>
> The truth is that all things are in flux.

The discerning question here is:

Is the truth in flux?

If your answer is "yes," then all things are not in flux, because if all things were in flux, truth
would not be in flux.

If your answer is "no," then all things are not in flux, because truth would be at least one example
of something not in flux.

Based on all possible answers to this discerning question:

One discerns that:

The truth is not all things are in flux.

Observe that the above is actual proof that I have been entrusted with stewardship of God's gift of
truth discernment

All praises belong to God now and forever.

> >My questions have been pertinent to the discernment of truth.
>
> Are you satisfied that you have fully discerned the truth of the dharma now?

I've known the truth about dharma for some time now.

> >Does my "gift" threaten you?
>
> I feel sorry for you and wish that I could help.

I take it that the answer is "yes."

> >> No need. I am always truthful.
> >
> >Really?
> >
> >Why was your father's ring important to you?
>
> Can you remind me of the context of our previous discussion regarding the subject of my deceased
> father's ring please Andrew, as I have no memory of the discussion at all?

You do not recall discussing your father's ring on Usenet?

> If there has indeed been no previous conversation I would appreciate an explanation as to how you
> came about that information before I consider answering such a personal and sensitive subject.

Google.

> >You are wandering around aimlessly.
>
> My aim is enlightenment, my path is the dharma.

Have you reached your aim yet?

> >Remember, when you get that letter from the Dalai Lama telling you to stop representing buddhism,
> >you can always turn to Christ for salvation.
>
> Is that an example of your 'clairvoyance' Andrew?

I don't have God's gift of claivoyance, Mozz.

> I will tell you as soon as His Holiness' letter arrives.

Ok.

> May you reach enlightenment swiftly to benefit all sentient beings.
>
> Mozz x

May you accept Christ as your personal Lord and Savior, someday, so that you too may reach
enlightenment.

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/?A26B16397

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

 

[Mozz]

Hello John,

Nice to meet you and thanks for showing an interest in this discussion.

>>In the case of the existence or non-existence of God we have no 'verifiable' evidence either way,
>>as we are not dealing with something demonstrable in the nebulous realm of metaphysics. The
>>arguement for or against God's existence can never be proven, merely debated.
>
>In another posting you stated:
>
>>Yes, because you are under the delusion that God is real.
>
>Hello Mozz. I am curious to know how you justify making these two statements as the seem to reveal
>an inconsistent approach. In the first above you state that the argument for or against God's
>existence can never be proven, merely debated. But then you equate belief in God with delusion.
>So......how can it be deluded to believe either of two mutually exclusive propositions, neither of
>which can be proven?

There is infact no inconsistency here John. As I have stated many times, from the buddhist point of
view, our everyday 'reality' we perceive is in point of fact illusory in nature at a fundamental
level. Compounding this general state of perception are beliefs that are unnecessary and only serve
to further deepen our samsaric delusions - such as the conjuring in the mind of a belief in a God.

Therefore, even though it is not possible to prove God exists or does not exist in any conventional
sense, it is still an accurate observation to characterize one's beliefs in God as a delusion.

>I think you have betrayed yourself in this regard in several other postings as well, such as your
>repeated use of the phrase "conjure up a God".

From the buddhist point of view, the mind is of supreme importance, infact it is fair to
characterize the buddhist approach - All Is Mind. Therefore my phrase 'to conjure up God' means
literally that, that a person either chooses to believe in such an idea and hold it in their
mind, or not.

I hope this clears up your misunderstanding John.

Respecfully,

Mozz x

 

[Mozz]

>Hi dear Mozz,

Hello Andrew,

I trust you are well.

>Would suggest you stick to this thread and try really hard to not be distracted by the
>obsessive weaknesses of others such as Bob Pastorio and Steve@nospam whose words serve only to
>set traps for you.
>
>Take this simply as "a word to the wise..."

I take people as I find them Andrew. Bob and Steve seem like nice guys, I have not seen anything to
suggest otherwise yet. If I do encounter a problem, I am sure I will be able to deal with it. I
appreciate your concern.

>You seem unable to discern the truth on your own so all examples will have been chosen to
>accomodate your lack.

I gladly review all examples given that I discern to be of relevance.

>> In the case of the existence or non-existence of God we have no 'verifiable' evidence either way,
>> as we are not dealing with something demonstrable in the nebulous realm of metaphysics.
>
>Then according to your own beliefs, you are on very shaky ground to call my belief in God a
>"delusion."

I believe that you are deluded in your theism. Because I can not 'prove' the non existence of God
does not invalidate my belief.

>> The arguement for or against God's existence can never be proven, merely debated.
>
>Only God knows whether your statement is true or not.

There is no God.

>> >It is hard to imagine that you ever understood the Bible since you deny the existence of:
>> >
>> >(1) Sins
>>
>> Ok, tell me where I have misunderstood - I understood sins to mean 'a transgression against God's
>> law' - 'and theologically; seperation from God'. As I no longer believe in God, it stands to
>> reason that I do not believe in sin. I accept the term 'sin' may sometimes be appropriated for
>> secular cultural useage, as in the breaking of a 'moral' law etc, but that is a different context
>> to linking the term directly with the belief in God.
>
>Sins are independent of belief in God.

Do you mean by that that you accept there are references to 'sins' without any need to reference
God? ie: a secular useage?

>> >(2) Prophecy (clairvoyance)
>>
>> Honestly, I remain open minded and I am prepared to be convinced that both prophecy and
>> clairvoyance 'may' be possible. However, I have yet to be shown an example of either that would
>> satisfy me of their authenticity.
>
>If you truly were a truth seeker, you would not be waiting "to be shown."

Can you explain why I would not be a truth seeker by waiting to be shown evidence in experience?

>> >(3) God
>>
>> I no longer believe in the existence of God. I accept that you do though Andrew, and I respect
>> your right to do so.
>
>...as I respect your choice to turn your back on God.

>> >Do you believe in the existence of evil, Mozz?
>>
>> I believe that one can label very bad things 'evil' , so in that context I do.
>
>Do you believe that a sentient being can be evil, Mozz?

No. His or her behaviour may be labelled very wicked or 'evil', but I do not believe a person can be
'evil' per se.

>> However I do not believe in a 'personalised organising principle or entity' directing evil such
>> as Satan.
>
>Not a surprise to me. To believe in Satan implies a belief in God.

I agree.

>> With respect, I would heed your warning if I was satisfied that you understood the slightest
>> aspect of dharma practice, however, you do not.
>
>It was not a warning but an observation.

Respectfully, your observation betrays your lack of insight.

>> I asked that question as I am curious as to how much you understand Taoism in regards to your
>> father. In Taoism there is a central principle of simple non resistance, of 'going with the flow'
>> of life, perhaps your father is adhering to this ancient wisdom, and it is this that you perceive
>> as aimless (valueless) wandering?
>
>It could be. The same could be said of your dharma.

It is true that you do seem to view the dharma as valueless. Again, your observation betrays your
lack of insight.

>> If that is what you observe, so be it. From my side however I remain firm and clear.
>
>Yet another discrepancy between what I observe and what you claim to feel.

Indeed.

>> The Dharma is firmly grounded in reality.
>
>Not from my vantage point.

Move to a better vantage point if you have the courage.

>> What do you mean when you say 'handle'?
>
>Mozz([email protected])

How does my 'handle' betray me? I never even chose it. It has nothing to do with me as I did not set
this computer up in the first place!

>> >Would you ever tell a person who has witnessed firsthand the destruction of the WT. towers on
>> >9/11/2001 that you know more about what s/he saw simply from reading written accounts of it?
>>
>> I do not see the relevance of your example? Can you elaborate?
>
>Seeing is believing.

And yet you did not witness any of the Biblical stories.

>> >And if this individual, claimed he was Siddhartha reincarnated, would you feel the same way?
>>
>> Yes of course.
>
>You would feel that reincarnation were impossible?

No. Siddhartha is dead, Siddhartha's buddha nature (subtle mind) would be carried forward for
rebirth, however, in the new body there would be nothing of Siddhartha at all.

>> The efficacy of the dharma can be personally verified by the individual. No need for 'belief'.
>
>The same could be said for prayer to God.

Not in my experience.

>You have asserted previously that you do not need others to reach enlightenment.

Your effort to practice the dharma diligently and fully would be entirely down to you as an
individual. However, once on the path, one generates compassion for all sentient beings, and this
also works hand in hand with the Wisdom aspect of the Path. The two wings of the Path are Wisdom and
Compassion.

>> >It is my experience that those who work in the mental health profession have the greatest need
>> >for its services.
>>
>> We must be fortunate then here in the UK, as in my experience those who work in the mental health
>> profession here are generally extremely well balanced individuals.
>
>You would not be an unbiased observer here.

I agree.

>> The truth is that all things are in flux.
>
>The discerning question here is:
>
>Is the truth in flux?

The truth is that all 'things' change.

>If your answer is "yes," then all things are not in flux, because if all things were in flux, truth
>would not be in flux.

Truth is not a 'thing'.

>If your answer is "no," then all things are not in flux, because truth would be at least one
>example of something not in flux.

My answer stands - the truth is that all things change.

>Based on all possible answers to this discerning question:

Your 'discernment' lacked skill. The other possibility is that 'Truth' is not a 'thing'.
>
>One discerns that:
>
>The truth is not all things are in flux.

This is not the case.

>Observe that the above is actual proof that I have been entrusted with stewardship of God's gift of
>truth discernment

(LOL) You are very funny Andrew! ;-)

>> Are you satisfied that you have fully discerned the truth of the dharma now?
>
>I've known the truth about dharma for some time now.

And yet this does not seem to be the case at all.

>> >Does my "gift" threaten you?
>>
>> I feel sorry for you and wish that I could help.
>
>I take it that the answer is "yes."

Another error. You seem to enjoy the fantasy that you might have such power, I am sorry to
disappoint you again.

>> >> No need. I am always truthful.
>> >
>> >Really?
>> >
>> >Why was your father's ring important to you?
>>
>> Can you remind me of the context of our previous discussion regarding the subject of my deceased
>> father's ring please Andrew, as I have no memory of the discussion at all?
>
>You do not recall discussing your father's ring on Usenet?

I do not recall discussing the subject with you, do you recall such a conversation with me?

>> If there has indeed been no previous conversation I would appreciate an explanation as to how you
>> came about that information before I consider answering such a personal and sensitive subject.
>
>Google.

What was your motivation for looking this up on Google?

>> My aim is enlightenment, my path is the dharma.
>
>Have you reached your aim yet?

I am on the path.

>> >Remember, when you get that letter from the Dalai Lama telling you to stop representing
>> >buddhism, you can always turn to Christ for salvation.
>>
>> Is that an example of your 'clairvoyance' Andrew?
>
>I don't have God's gift of claivoyance, Mozz.

I know.

>> I will tell you as soon as His Holiness' letter arrives.
>
>Ok.

It is not here yet ;-)

Respectfully,

Mozz x

 

[Dr. Andrew B. C]

Hi Mozz whom I love,

Mozz wrote:

> I trust you are well.
>

My Lord keeps me well.

>
> >Would suggest you stick to this thread and try really hard to not be distracted by the obsessive
> >weaknesses of others such as Bob Pastorio and Steve@nospam whose words serve only to set traps
> >for you.
> >
> >Take this simply as "a word to the wise..."
>
> I take people as I find them Andrew. Bob and Steve seem like nice guys, I have not seen anything
> to suggest otherwise yet. If I do encounter a problem, I am sure I will be able to deal with it. I
> appreciate your concern.
>

You are welcome. My concern is out of Christian love.

>
> >You seem unable to discern the truth on your own so all examples will have been chosen to
> >accomodate your lack.
>
> I gladly review all examples given that I discern to be of relevance.
>
> >> In the case of the existence or non-existence of God we have no 'verifiable' evidence either
> >> way, as we are not dealing with something demonstrable in the nebulous realm of metaphysics.
> >
> >Then according to your own beliefs, you are on very shaky ground to call my belief in God a
> >"delusion."
>
> I believe that you are deluded in your theism. Because I can not 'prove' the non existence of God
> does not invalidate my belief.
>

It does mean that you have no basis for your diagnosis.

> >> The arguement for or against God's existence can never be proven, merely debated.
> >
> >Only God knows whether your statement is true or not.
>
> There is no God.
>

That would be your faithless belief.

>
> >> >It is hard to imagine that you ever understood the Bible since you deny the existence of:
> >> >
> >> >(1) Sins
> >>
> >> Ok, tell me where I have misunderstood - I understood sins to mean 'a transgression against
> >> God's law' - 'and theologically; seperation from God'. As I no longer believe in God, it stands
> >> to reason that I do not believe in sin. I accept the term 'sin' may sometimes be appropriated
> >> for secular cultural useage, as in the breaking of a 'moral' law etc, but that is a different
> >> context to linking the term directly with the belief in God.
> >
> >Sins are independent of belief in God.
>
> Do you mean by that that you accept there are references to 'sins' without any need to reference
> God? ie: a secular useage?
>

I know there are such references.

> >> >(2) Prophecy (clairvoyance)
> >>
> >> Honestly, I remain open minded and I am prepared to be convinced that both prophecy and
> >> clairvoyance 'may' be possible. However, I have yet to be shown an example of either that would
> >> satisfy me of their authenticity.
> >
> >If you truly were a truth seeker, you would not be waiting "to be shown."
>
> Can you explain why I would not be a truth seeker by waiting to be shown evidence in experience?
>

Seeking is by definition an active process.

>
> >> >(3) God
> >>
> >> I no longer believe in the existence of God. I accept that you do though Andrew, and I respect
> >> your right to do so.
> >
> >...as I respect your choice to turn your back on God.
>
> >> >Do you believe in the existence of evil, Mozz?
> >>
> >> I believe that one can label very bad things 'evil' , so in that context I do.
> >
> >Do you believe that a sentient being can be evil, Mozz?
>
> No. His or her behaviour may be labelled very wicked or 'evil', but I do not believe a person can
> be 'evil' per se.
>

Was ****** evil, Mozz?

Was Caligula evil?

>
> >> However I do not believe in a 'personalised organising principle or entity' directing evil such
> >> as Satan.
> >
> >Not a surprise to me. To believe in Satan implies a belief in God.
>
> I agree.
>
> >> With respect, I would heed your warning if I was satisfied that you understood the slightest
> >> aspect of dharma practice, however, you do not.
> >
> >It was not a warning but an observation.
>
> Respectfully, your observation betrays your lack of insight.
>

Observations are proof of an observer's insight.

>
> >> I asked that question as I am curious as to how much you understand Taoism in regards to your
> >> father. In Taoism there is a central principle of simple non resistance, of 'going with the
> >> flow' of life, perhaps your father is adhering to this ancient wisdom, and it is this that you
> >> perceive as aimless (valueless) wandering?
> >
> >It could be. The same could be said of your dharma.
>
> It is true that you do seem to view the dharma as valueless. Again, your observation betrays your
> lack of insight.
>

Observations are proof of an observer's insight.

>
> >> If that is what you observe, so be it. From my side however I remain firm and clear.
> >
> >Yet another discrepancy between what I observe and what you claim to feel.
>
> Indeed.
>
> >> The Dharma is firmly grounded in reality.
> >
> >Not from my vantage point.
>
> Move to a better vantage point if you have the courage.
>

Have I rescinded my offer for you to take our interactions to a higher level (personal email, visit
to Atlanta, et cetera) ?

>
> >> What do you mean when you say 'handle'?
> >
> >Mozz([email protected])
>
> How does my 'handle' betray me?

Joda is a fictional character in George Lucas' fantasy.

Dagobah is a fictional planet in that fantasy.

> I never even chose it.

Is it your claim that the handle chose you?

> It has nothing to do with me as I did not set this computer up in the first place!
>

Sounds like you need many people to help you reach enlightenment.

>
> >> >Would you ever tell a person who has witnessed firsthand the destruction of the WT. towers on
> >> >9/11/2001 that you know more about what s/he saw simply from reading written accounts of it?
> >>
> >> I do not see the relevance of your example? Can you elaborate?
> >
> >Seeing is believing.
>
> And yet you did not witness any of the Biblical stories.
>

I have witnessed both the discovery of and the genetic sequence of the mtDNA of Eve.

Is Eve a character of one of the stories of the Holy Bible ?

> >> >And if this individual, claimed he was Siddhartha reincarnated, would you feel the same way?
> >>
> >> Yes of course.
> >
> >You would feel that reincarnation were impossible?
>
> No. Siddhartha is dead, Siddhartha's buddha nature (subtle mind) would be carried forward for
> rebirth, however, in the new body there would be nothing of Siddhartha at all.

Not even dharma?

> >> The efficacy of the dharma can be personally verified by the individual. No need for 'belief'.
> >
> >The same could be said for prayer to God.
>
> Not in my experience.
>

Not surprising since you have stated that you are unable to "let go."

> >You have asserted previously that you do not need others to reach enlightenment.
>
> Your effort to practice the dharma diligently and fully would be entirely down to you as an
> individual. However, once on the path, one generates compassion for all sentient beings, and this
> also works hand in hand with the Wisdom aspect of the Path. The two wings of the Path are Wisdom
> and Compassion.

It seems your dharma path is divided. Which wing will you choose?

> >> >It is my experience that those who work in the mental health profession have the greatest need
> >> >for its services.
> >>
> >> We must be fortunate then here in the UK, as in my experience those who work in the mental
> >> health profession here are generally extremely well balanced individuals.
> >
> >You would not be an unbiased observer here.
>
> I agree.
>
> >> The truth is that all things are in flux.
> >
> >The discerning question here is:
> >
> >Is the truth in flux?
>
> The truth is that all 'things' change.
>
> >If your answer is "yes," then all things are not in flux, because if all things were in flux,
> >truth would not be in flux.
>
> Truth is not a 'thing'.
>

Truth is the thing that we are discussing at this moment.

>
> >If your answer is "no," then all things are not in flux, because truth would be at least one
> >example of something not in flux.
>
> My answer stands - the truth is that all things change.
>
> >Based on all possible answers to this discerning question:
>
> Your 'discernment' lacked skill. The other possibility is that 'Truth' is not a 'thing'.

Then why are we discussing this thing we call truth?

> >One discerns that:
> >
> >The truth is not all things are in flux.
>
> This is not the case.
>
> >Observe that the above is actual proof that I have been entrusted with stewardship of God's gift
> >of truth discernment
>
> (LOL) You are very funny Andrew! ;-)
>

For those with the gift of truth discernment, truth is a very real and visible thing.

> >> Are you satisfied that you have fully discerned the truth of the dharma now?
> >
> >I've known the truth about dharma for some time now.
>
> And yet this does not seem to be the case at all.
>

Your perceptions are colored by your apparent inability to discern the truth.

> >> >Does my "gift" threaten you?
> >>
> >> I feel sorry for you and wish that I could help.
> >
> >I take it that the answer is "yes."
>
> Another error. You seem to enjoy the fantasy that you might have such power, I am sorry to
> disappoint you again.
>

Being able to discern the truth is not a power, Mozz.

If it were, seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling, touching would also be powers.

>
> >> >> No need. I am always truthful.
> >> >
> >> >Really?
> >> >
> >> >Why was your father's ring important to you?
> >>
> >> Can you remind me of the context of our previous discussion regarding the subject of my
> >> deceased father's ring please Andrew, as I have no memory of the discussion at all?
> >
> >You do not recall discussing your father's ring on Usenet?
>
> I do not recall discussing the subject with you, do you recall such a conversation with me?
>

No.

>
> >> If there has indeed been no previous conversation I would appreciate an explanation as to how
> >> you came about that information before I consider answering such a personal and sensitive
> >> subject.
> >
> >Google.
>
> What was your motivation for looking this up on Google?
>

I am a truth seeker, Mozz.

>
> >> My aim is enlightenment, my path is the dharma.
> >
> >Have you reached your aim yet?
>
> I am on the path.
>

When do you believe you will reach enlightenment?

>
> >> >Remember, when you get that letter from the Dalai Lama telling you to stop representing
> >> >buddhism, you can always turn to Christ for salvation.
> >>
> >> Is that an example of your 'clairvoyance' Andrew?
> >
> >I don't have God's gift of claivoyance, Mozz.
>
> I know.
>

Then why did you ask?

> >> I will tell you as soon as His Holiness' letter arrives.
> >
> >Ok.
>
> It is not here yet ;-)
>

Perhaps we should forward these archived discussions to him to expedite things.

Do you know his email address?

>
> Respectfully,
>
> Mozz x

You remain in my prayers, dear neighbor whom I love.

Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

Andrew

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

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

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

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

 

[Richard Lucarno]

On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 18:35:19 -0500, "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
<[email protected]> wrote:

^Richard Lucarno wrote: ^ ^> On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 21:41:10 -0500, "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" ^>
<[email protected]> wrote: ^> ^> ^Mozz wrote: ^> ^ ^> ^> Hello Andrew, ^> ^> ^> ^> >I am glad we
agree that there is only one truth. ^> ^> ^> ^> It stands to reason, the truth is the truth.
(Reality; actuality. ^> ^> that which is considered to be the supreme reality and to have the ^> ^>
ultimate meaning and value of existence.) ie - not the fiction that is ^> ^> the idea of God. ^> ^
^> ^If God were fiction, it should be easy for you to disprove Him. ^> ^> Your logic is flawed. If
you make a statement about something ^> existing, it is incumbent on you to prove the existence of
that ^> object, not on the person who doubts to disprove it. ^ ^By your participation in this
discussion, you make a statement that you exist. ^ ^So according to *your* logic, it is incumbent on
you to prove your own existence.

Garbage. I made no such statement regarding my existence. Obviously, someone exists to post my
message, since it didn't post itself. That makes my existence self-evident. But you have advanced no
evidence of God's existence, because you can't. You can't prove that the universe didn't exist for
all eternity, without the need of a conscious agent. ^ ^Afterall, you could be someone's sock.

Which would mean that I exist, since someone would have to create a sock puppet. Or do you think
"sock puppets" pop out of the ether? This is the most idiotic statement I've seen in a long while.
There is no "alter ego" without the original "ego." All "socks" are created by people. Therefore,
those that write using "socks" are people.

^ ^Would be more than happen to resume this discussion with you when you prove *your* existence.

No need, as I pointed out above.

^ ^ ^Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

You've yet to let any of your boss's humility wear off onto you.

^ ^Andrew

 

[Mozz]

>Hi Mozz whom I love,

Unconditionally?

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

My basis lies in the indisputable truth of emptiness.

>> There is no God.
>
>That would be your faithless belief.

It is my observation. I have sought God out, and discovered that He does not exist. Witness buddhist
truth discernment in action

>> >Sins are independent of belief in God.
>>
>> Do you mean by that that you accept there are references to 'sins' without any need to reference
>> God? ie: a secular useage?
>
>I know there are such references.

So, as you have recognised there is a secular reference to 'sin' also
(ie: non theist)

>> Can you explain why I would not be a truth seeker by waiting to be shown evidence in experience?
>
>Seeking is by definition an active process.

I sought out God, and instead found Emptiness.

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

No. His behaviour may be justifiably labelled very wicked or 'evil', but I do not believe a person
can be 'evil' per se.

>
>Was Caligula evil?

See Above.

>Observations are proof of an observer's insight.

No, merely the observers 'interpretation' of events.

>Observations are proof of an observer's insight.

No, merely the observers 'interpretation' of events.

>> Move to a better vantage point if you have the courage.
>
>Have I rescinded my offer for you to take our interactions to a higher level (personal email, visit
>to Atlanta, et cetera) ?

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

>> How does my 'handle' betray me?
>
>Joda is a fictional character in George Lucas' fantasy.

Can you prove that George Lucas was not the unconscious 'vessel' to transmit to the world a new
religion? Can you prove that The Force is not real? Some people do believe in The Force. Like your
Bible stories there are authoratitive mythological texts - 'the Star Wars movies'. For you there is
Satan and his demonic hordes of darkness. For them they have The Emperor and Vader and the Dark
Lords of the Sith.... You have your saints and spiritual crusaders, they have their Jedi Knights...

Can you see the parallels? What is really the difference between them and you?

>Is it your claim that the handle chose you?

My friend who built the system here chose it without my input.

>Sounds like you need many people to help you reach enlightenment.

How on earth did you get from the setting up of a computer system to enlightenment? (LOL)

>> And yet you did not witness any of the Biblical stories.
>
>I have witnessed both the discovery of and the genetic sequence of the mtDNA of Eve.
>
>Is Eve a character of one of the stories of the Holy Bible ?

Try reading Bob's posts on the latest scientific pronouncements on that research. Then you may lay
that ghost to rest and move on in clarity.

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

No, the dharma are the teachings.

>Not surprising since you have stated that you are unable to "let go."

May I respectfully point out that a fundamental aspect of buddhist practice is 'letting go of
attachment'.

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

As I pointed out (you must have missed it) the two work hand in hand, symbiotically.

>Truth is the thing that we are discussing at this moment.

It is only a 'thing' in a purely abstract sense in the act of mentation. The 'thought' - truth is
not the same as actual 'truth'.

>Then why are we discussing this thing we call truth?

You tell me. You seem to be obsessed with the delusion that you 'know'
if.

>For those with the gift of truth discernment, truth is a very real and visible thing.

And yet you cannot point to it can you?

>Your perceptions are colored by your apparent inability to discern the truth.

Only apparent to you and those who might share your delusions.

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

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

>> What was your motivation for looking this up on Google?

>I am a truth seeker, Mozz.

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

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

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

Mozz

 

[Bob]

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

> Hi dear Mozz,
>
> Would suggest you stick to this thread and try really hard to not be distracted by the obsessive
> weaknesses of others such as Bob Pastorio and Steve@nospam whose words serve only to set traps
> for you.
>
> Take this simply as "a word to the wise..."

<LOL> Right. Words to set traps...

Only for Chung and only because of his dishonesty and arrogance. His misinformation and his
steadfast inability to consider anything beyond what he "knows" to be "true."

Mozz is sufficiently wise not to be taken in by Chung's falsity and self-praise.

>>Ok, tell me where I have misunderstood - I understood sins to mean 'a transgression against God's
>>law' - 'and theologically; seperation from God'. As I no longer believe in God, it stands to
>>reason that I do not believe in sin. I accept the term 'sin' may sometimes be appropriated for
>>secular cultural useage, as in the breaking of a 'moral' law etc, but that is a different context
>>to linking the term directly with the belief in God.
>
> Sins are independent of belief in God.

The concept of sin is a uniquely religious one.

>>>(2) Prophecy (clairvoyance)
>>
>>Honestly, I remain open minded and I am prepared to be convinced that both prophecy and
>>clairvoyance 'may' be possible.
>
> I am glad you see the wisdom in revising your position.
>
>>However, I have yet to be shown an example of either that would satisfy me of their authenticity.
>
> If you truly were a truth seeker, you would not be waiting "to be shown."

What a perfectly silly thing to say. One has so much time and so much energy and so many priorities.
The dazzling scarcity of documented examples of clairvoyance leads balanced people to concentrate on
realities, not fancies.

I'm waiting for proof of life on other planets.

> Yet another discrepancy between what I observe and what you claim to feel.

Chung keeps talking about "observing" as though seeing marks on a monitor screen is actually
observing rather than judging and evaluating against some standards.

>>>Truth does not change.
>>
>>The truth is that all things are in flux.
>
> The discerning question here is:
>
> Is the truth in flux?

That's not discerning. It's assuming several premises that aren't warranted.
1) what is truth?
2) are there different kinds of truth?
3) what does flux mean in the context?
4) is truth other than data?
5) can truths differ in different contexts?
6) can statements be both true and not true?

> If your answer is "yes," then all things are not in flux, because if all things were in flux,
> truth would not be in flux.
>
> If your answer is "no," then all things are not in flux, because truth would be at least one
> example of something not in flux.
>
> Based on all possible answers to this discerning question:
>
> One discerns that:
>
> The truth is not all things are in flux.
>
> Observe that the above is actual proof that I have been entrusted with stewardship of God's gift
> of truth discernment

Actually, what it actually proves is a sloppy approach to logical rigor. Too many undefined
conditions used in mere wordplay rather than thorough elaboration.

Working from the statement, "All things are in flux" means to consider "all things." Chung
identifies truth as a thing. Whereas truth is actually a description of a statement of a condition
or situation. It's a value judgement with no absolute identity.

Heisenberg, Einstein and Schroedinger all demonstrated that truth is dependent on the perceiver's
situation. And, while truth isn't a thing in the sense of its being tangible, the variability of it
says that it remains interpretable. Interpretation assumes differing conditions. Moving from one
condition to another means flux.

Is light a wave or a particle? Both? How can that be? It is, nevertheless true that light is a wave.
It is equally true that light is a particle. Both can be proved mathematically and both can be
proved empirically. They are both truth. They are mutually exclusive.

>>>Why was your father's ring important to you?
>>
>>Can you remind me of the context of our previous discussion regarding the subject of my deceased
>>father's ring please Andrew, as I have no memory of the discussion at all?
>
> You do not recall discussing your father's ring on Usenet?
>
>>If there has indeed been no previous conversation I would appreciate an explanation as to how you
>>came about that information before I consider answering such a personal and sensitive subject.
>
> Google.

Another example of the Chung/Mu vileness of trying to find sensitive places and vulnerabilities to
use against people. To cause pain and humiliate people. To demonstrate their viciousness.

Pity that Chung is unable to use his "truth discernment" ray gun on himself. Might be just as
revolted as most everybody else.

Bob

 

[Smoke]

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

I agree, this man is revolting, and would also add delusional, especially as a symptom of
mental illness.

Smoke