 |
Newsgroups: sci.med.cardiology
From: "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com>
Date: Sun, 07 Mar 2004 02:51:15 -0500
Local: Sun, Mar 7 2004 2:51 am
Subject: Re: Was Jesus Compassionate
Hi Mozz,
Mozz wrote: They are. Thanks for the well wishes. > Hi Andrew, > I hope everything's okay with you and your family. May God bless you and yours, in Christ's name. > >It is my hope you have regained your composure. Good. > I have, thanks for your concern. > >I do enjoy our discussions and He has my love as do you. > >would hate to see you become another Bob Pastorio. He remains in my prayers, that > >God heals him, in Christ's name. > Respectfully, I am not interested in whatever seems to be the problem > >You probably meant "My curious reaction." I guess you have not fully regained Truth is hardly cheap. > >your composure yet. > (LOL) Thanks for rephrasing it, you are indeed correct in what I > >Perhaps, you should meditate and pray to yourself here before reading any further. > (LOL) Pray to myself!!! Very funny!!! ;-) > Hey, do you want some time out here from taking cheap shots at me to > >> >So your claim is that all who are not buddhist are deluded. Ok, you believe that all here at SMC who have not realized emptiness are > Tradition claims that all who have not reached full enlightenment > >So your claim is that all who are not "realized" buddhists are deluded. > Anyone who has not 'realized emptiness' suffers while caught in this > >> >In short, you believe that everyone participating in discussions here at SMC > I have never claimed to have realized emptiness. I am a humble > >In short, you believe every participant here at SMC is deluded including yourself. > I cannot say whether anyone participating here at SMC has realized deluded and this includes yourself. > >It is not possible to point out a tree to a blind man. Why all three senses for the blind man? Why not just one? > It is possible to lead a blind man to 'touch' a tree. To 'hear' the > You can not point to God so that I can 'see' him. I do not have the power of time travel. > I cannot 'hear' a Are you deaf? > God. > I cannot 'touch' a God or 'taste' a God. Do you lack the senses of touch and taste? > Therefore, despite you I am not here to convince you but only to inform you. > going red in the face, stamping your feet in frustration, trying > desperately hard to convince me otherwise, > you can only admit to I know what I know. > 'belief' in something completely intangible. > >When you visit me, I will point up at where I believe Pluto is located but you Yes. But I do not have one strong enough to allow us to see Pluto. > >will not see it. > Ever heard of a telescope? > Can you show me God or Heaven through a telescope? I can't even show you Pluto. > Has the Hubble When you see a photo of a house, do you not have proof of its builder? > orbital telescope found any photos of God waving back yet? > >> I can It is His Word. You wrote earlier that your wanted to hear Him. > >> show you a photograph if you wish? > >I can show you a Bible if you wish me to. > And that would prove what exactly? An anthropological/cultural record > >> Can you supply a photograph of God? The Bible is His Word. > >No. > >But, I can show you His Word. > Respectfully, all you can show me is the Bible. (see above) > >> >So you believe it is possible that your Dalai Lama may actually be Hitler What happened to your believing in only that which is tangible? > >> >reincarnated? > >> No. Hitler was still alive when His Holiness was born. > >Ok. > >So you believe it is possible that your Dalai Lama may actually be Caligula > No, the positive karma needed to be acrued to be reborn as a Dalai > >> I am still waiting for a convincing demonstration. It remains your choice. My only obligation, out of love, is that you > >It is your choice to remain unconvinced. You have God's gift of free will. > I have free will and intelligence, and I remain unconvinced. are informed about your choice. > >> >I have read Bob's posts and was sad at sensing how desperate and despairing It remains an observation. > >> >he felt. He remains in my prayers to God that he someday accept Christ as His > >> >Lord and Savior. > >> Despite your views of Bob's 'feelings' he is clearly a very > >He is eloquently unwise. > That is a value judgement - this does not bode well for your soul. http://www.heartmdphd.com/libel.asp > >> His points are generally well made and demonstrate a It remains my observation. > >> rigorous respect for accuracy and intellect. > >He has lost all credibility : > >http://www.heartmdphd.com/libel.asp > If that is your judgement, so be it. > He remains credible as far as I If that were true, why aren't you conversing with him? > am concerned. Wouldn't you like for him to become enlightened? (Witness the gift of truth discernment at work :-) > >> Instead of trading I remain obedient to my Lord. > >> insults I suggest you try to debate with him. > >We have until I grew weary of his ad hominems. I only have two cheeks :-) > That is your choice to make, however, it does not seem in harmony with > >So you are aspiring to be "snuffed out" ? Ok. > To end all delusion in samsara. To 'snuff out' desire, attachment and > >> The beauty of Dharma practice is that both compassion and wisdom are > >Then why two wings and not one path ? > Like your doctrine of the Trinity, three are one, there are two > >Having the gift of truth discernment is not the same as having the gift of Have never claimed otherwise but... > >infallibility. > I know you are fallible, you frequently demonstrate such here on these > >I write truthfully. I continue to write truthfully. > I believe you believe in what you write. That does not make the > >Sounds like you continue to depend heavily on others for your enlightenment Glad to read this. There is hope for you after all. > >despite your protestations to the contrary. > I have no problem with acknowledging the help of others in my life > >> Hmmm....I wonder who I should take most notice of...the experienced Was he not interested in reading the discussion firsthand? > >> Tibetan monk or the confused fundamentalist christian extremist? ;-) > >Has your teacher read our discussions? > No, I have discussed them with him. > >> He was not judging, merely making an 'observation' like you do Andrew. The former is an observation and the latter is a judgement. > >> ;-) > >You choose your definitions in a manner that suits your argument. > Pot/kettle interface malfunction I think!!!!!!!!! May God help you to someday discern the difference. > >Better not to judge either yourself or others. Hardly. > I agree, and yet you continue to do just that with your contentious > >> I have researched a little and found some interesting questions about I discern it. > >> the Bible which I would like you to clear up - > >Are these questions from your teacher? > No. > >> 1 - Turning to the New Testament, there are contradictions between the > >There are. And I believe this contradiction was permitted by God. > Can you point me to the direct quotation from The Bible where it is > >> Both genealogies I stopped despairing when I accepted Christ as my personal Lord and > >> list Jesus' father as being Joseph (which is curious, given that Mary > >> was supposedly impregnated by the Holy Ghost), but Matthew states that > >> the name of Joseph's father was Jacob, while Luke says that his name > >> was Heli. Also, Matthew tells us that there were twenty-six > >> generations between Jesus and King David, but Luke reports that the > >> number of such generations was forty-one. In addition, Matthew alleges > >> that Jesus' line of descent was through David's son Solomon, but Luke > >> asserts that it was through David's son Nathan??? > >If Joseph were the biological father of Jesus, his geneology would matter to God > I sense your desperation. You are clutching at straws Andrew! Savior. > >> 2 - In the story of the birth of Jesus, Matthew 2:13-15 says that I discern it. > >> Joseph and Mary fled to Egypt with the baby Jesus immediately after > >> the wise men from the east had brought their gifts. However, Luke > >> 2:22-40 indicates that, after the birth of Jesus, Joseph and Mary > >> remained in Bethlehem for the time of Mary's purification (which was > >> forty days, under the Mosaic law), then brought Jesus to Jerusalem "to > >> present him to the Lord," and then returned to their home in Nazareth. > >> Luke makes no mention of a journey into Egypt or a visit by wise men > >> from the east. > >Each writer clearly had different perspectives and sources of information. Again, > Can you point me to the direct quotation from The Bible where it is > >> 3 - As to the death of the disciple Judas, Matthew 27:5 states that I still discern it. > >> Judas took the money that he had obtained by betraying Jesus, threw it > >> down in the temple, and then "went and hanged himself." However, Acts > >> 1:18 reports that Judas used the money to purchase a field and > >> "falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels > >> gushed out." > >Each writer clearly had different perspectives and sources of information. Again, > Can you point me to the direct quotation from The Bible where it is > >> 4 - In describing Jesus being led to his execution, John 19:17 states I still discern it. > >> that Jesus carried his own cross. In contrast, Mark 15:21-23 says that > >> a man called Simon carried Jesus' cross to the crucifixion site. > >Each writer clearly had different perspectives and sources of information. Again, > Can you point me to the direct quotation from The Bible where it is > >> 5 - Regarding the crucifixion itself, Matthew 27:44 tells us that > >Each writer clearly had different perspectives and sources of information. Again, > Can you point me to the direct quotation from The Bible where it is > >> 6 - As to the last words of Jesus while on the cross, Matthew 27:46 > >Each writer clearly had different perspectives and sources of information. Again, > Can you point me to the direct quotation from The Bible where it is > >> 7 - There are even contradictions in the accounts of the resurrection > >Each writer clearly had different perspectives and sources of information. Again, > Can you point me to the direct quotation from The Bible where it is > >> 8 - Also in the resurrection accounts, there are contradictions as to > >Each writer clearly had different perspectives and sources of information. Again, > Can you point me to the direct quotation from The Bible where it is > >> 9 - As a final example of a contradiction contained in the New I still discern it. > >> Testament, the conflicting accounts of the conversion of Paul can be > >> cited. Acts 9:7 says that when Jesus called Paul to preach the gospel, > >> the men who were with Paul heard a voice but saw no man. However, Acts > >> 22:9 asserts that when Paul received his calling, the men who were > >> with him saw a light but did not hear the voice that spoke to Paul. > >Each writer clearly had different perspectives and sources of information. Again, > Can you point me to the direct quotation from The Bible where it is > >> The foregoing examples are just a few of the hundreds of No, that is not what I have written. > >> contradictions contained in the Bible. The presence of such > >> contradictions plainly shows that the Bible contains many erroneous > >> statements and is therefore far from infallible. > >The erroneous reporting of events by truthful witnesses is in itself a truth. > You are saying it is true that there are errors? In terms that you (and Bob Pastorio) can hopefully understand: When one gathers up volunteers to witness a staged event, subsequent Such "errors" have the utility of supporting the authenticity of the > >> Do you agree the Bible is far from infallible Andrew? What you call fallibility, is the fallibility of man and not the > >No. > (LOL) the fallibility is proven above. Open you eyes. fallibility of either God or His Word. This illustrates how despite our imperfections, God is able to use us to realize His perfect plan. Isn't God great? > >> If not, can you > >Yes. I discern truth in the "erroneous" written accounts by the various witnesses > So we should believe it's true 'despite the multitude of erroneous > Really, Andrew...surely you're brighter than that? Yes, God has also given me the gift of intelligence through the Holy Spirit. The glory remains His now and forever. > Hoping that Andrew finds the dharma path for himself soon. Thank you for kisses :-) > Mozz xxx You remain in my prayers to God, dear neighbor, in Christ's name. Servant to the humblest person in the universe, Andrew -- ** What is all this about? Is this spam? You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| |||||||||||||