Was Jesus Compassionate
wholey_smoke
The birth of Jesus was heralded with "Peace on Earth," yet Jesus said,
"Think not that I am come to send peace: I came not to send peace but a
sword." (Matthew 10:34) "He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment,
and buy one." (Luke 22:36) "But those mine enemies, which would not that I
should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." (Luke 19:27.
In a parable, but spoken of favorably.)
The burning of unbelievers during the Inquisition was based on the words of
Jesus: "If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is
withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are
burned." (John 15:6)
Jesus looked at his critics "with anger" (Mark 3:5), and attacked merchants
with a whip (John 2:15). He showed his respect for life by drowning innocent
animals (Matthew 8:32). He refused to heal a sick child until he was
pressured by the mother (Matthew 15:22-28).
The most revealing aspect of his character was his promotion of eternal
torment. "The Son of man [Jesus himself] shall send forth his angels, and
they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which
do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be
wailing and gnashing of teeth." (Matthew 13:41-42) "And if thy hand offend
thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than
having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be
quenched." (Mark 9:43)
Is this nice? Is it exemplary to make your point with threats of violence?
Is hell a kind, peaceful idea?
Did Jesus Promote "Family Values"?
"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and
children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot
be my disciple." (Luke 14:26)
"I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter
against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a
man's foes shall be they of his own household." (Matthew 10:35-36)
When one of his disciples requested time off for his father's funeral, Jesus
rebuked him: "Let the dead bury their dead." (Matthew 8:22)
Jesus never used the word "family." He never married or fathered children.
To his own mother, he said, "Woman, what have I to do with thee?" (John 2:4)
What Were His Views On Equality And Social Justice?
Jesus encouraged the beating of slaves: "And that servant [slave], which
knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his
will, shall be beaten with many stripes." (Luke 12:47) He never denounced
servitude, incorporating the master-slave relationship into many of his
parables.
He did nothing to alleviate poverty. Rather than sell some expensive
ointment to help the poor, Jesus wasted it on himself, saying, "Ye have the
poor with you always." (Mark 14:3-7)
No women were chosen as disciples or invited to the Last Supper.
What Moral Advice Did Jesus Give?
"There be eunuchs which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of
heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it." (Matthew
19:12) Some believers, including church father Origen, took this verse
literally and castrated themselves. Even metaphorically, this advice is in
poor taste.
a.. If you do something wrong with your eye or hand, cut/pluck it off
(Matthew 5:29-30, in a sexual context).
b.. Marrying a divorced woman is adultery. (Matthew 5:32)
c.. Don't plan for the future. (Matthew 6:34)
d.. Don't save money. (Matthew 6:19-20)
e.. Don't become wealthy. (Mark 10:21-25)
f.. Sell everything and give it to the poor. (Luke 12:33)
g.. Don't work to obtain food. (John 6:27)
h.. Don't have sexual urges. (Matthew 5:28)
i.. Make people want to persecute you. (Matthew 5:11)
j.. Let everyone know you are better than the rest. (Matthew 5:13-16)
k.. Take money from those who have no savings and give it to rich
investors. (Luke 19:23-26)
l.. If someone steals from you, don't try to get it back. (Luke 6:30)
m.. If someone hits you, invite them to do it again. (Matthew 5:39)
n.. If you lose a lawsuit, give more than the judgment. (Matthew 5:40)
o.. If someone forces you to walk a mile, walk two miles. (Matthew 5:41)
p.. If anyone asks you for anything, give it to them without question.
(Matthew 5:42)
Is this wise? Is this what you would teach your children?
Was Jesus Reliable?
Jesus told his disciples that they would not die before his second coming:
"There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see
the Son of man coming in his kingdom" (Matthew 16:28). "Behold, I come
quickly." (Revelation 3:11) It's been 2,000 years, and believers are still
waiting for his "quick" return.
He mistakenly claimed that the mustard seed is "the least of all seeds"
(Matt. 13:32), and that salt could "lose its savour" (Matthew 5:13).
Jesus said that whoever calls somebody a "fool" shall be in danger of hell
fire (Matthew 5:22), yet he called people "fools" himself (Matthew 23:17).
Regarding his own truthfulness, Jesus gave two conflicting opinions: "If I
bear witness of myself, my witness is not true" (John 5:31), and "Though I
bear record of myself, yet my record is true" (John 8:14).
Was Jesus A Good Example?
He irrationally cursed a fig tree for being fruitless out of season (Matthew
21:18-19, and Mark 11:13-14). He broke the law by stealing corn on the
Sabbath (Mark 2:23), and he encouraged his disciples to take a horse without
asking permission (Matthew 21).
The "humble" Jesus said that he was "greater than the temple" (Matt 12:6),
"greater than Jonah" (Matthew 12:41), and "greater than Solomon" (Matthew
12:42). He appeared to suffer from a dictator's "paranoia" when he said, "He
that is not with me is against me" (Matthew 12:30).
Why Jesus?
Although other verses can be cited that portray Jesus in a different light,
they do not erase the disturbing side of his character. The conflicting
passages, however, prove that the New Testament is contradictory.
The "Golden Rule" had been said many times by earlier religious leaders.
(Confucius: "Do not unto others that you would not have them do unto you.")
"Turn the other cheek" encourages victims to invite further violence. "Love
thy neighbor" applied only to fellow believers. (Neither the Jews nor Jesus
showed much love to foreign religions). A few of the Beatitudes ("Blessed
are the peacemakers") are acceptable, but they are all conditions of future
reward, not based on respect for human life or values.
On the whole, Jesus said little that was worthwhile. He introduced nothing
new to ethics (except hell). He instituted no social programs. Being
"omniscient," he could have shared some useful science or medicine, but he
appeared ignorant of such things (as if his character were merely the
invention of writers stuck in the first century).
Many scholars are doubtful of the historical existence of Jesus. Albert
Schweitzer said, "The historical Jesus will be to our time a stranger and an
enigma." No first-century writer confirms the Jesus story. The New Testament
is internally contradictory and contains historical errors. The story is
filled with miracles and other outrageous claims. Consisting mostly of
material borrowed from pagan religions, the Jesus story appears to be cut
from the same fabric as all other myths and fables.
Why is Jesus so special? It would be more reasonable and productive to
emulate real, flesh-and-blood human beings who have contributed to
humanity--mothers who have given birth, scientists who have alleviated
suffering, social reformers who have fought injustice--than to worship a
character of such dubious qualities as Jesus.
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Jesus answers as written in John 14:
6Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the
Father except through me..."
> It would be more reasonable and productive to
> emulate real, flesh-and-blood human beings who have contributed to
> humanity--mothers who have given birth, scientists who have alleviated
> suffering, social reformers who have fought injustice--than to worship a
> character of such dubious qualities as Jesus.
I prefer the truth.
Humbly,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com
Pete C.
since you posted - now you know why us Jews have and will never accept
jesus as their "moshiach", for the reasons in your post and many
others.
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Hope for your sake, God the Father accepts your excuse.
It remains my belief that He won't. Sorry.
Humbly,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
Sun & Mun_
>now you know why us Jews have and will never accept
>jesus as their "moshiach", for the reasons in your post and many
>others.
Best rethink that. You are no longer the only Chosen Ones.
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap031122.html
Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long.
wholey_smoke
MU_lti_Facets_Of_Lunacy always sign of with threats.
The fact's are there and are indisputable.
"Pete C." <pete...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:25e68f26.04012...@posting.google.com...
wholey_smoke
"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote in message
news:6b09e7caa4b86947...@news.teranews.com...
It's there in front of you.
Carol T
>>>>> Jesus never used the word "family." He never married or fathered
children.
> To his own mother, he said, "Woman, what have I to do with thee?" (John 2:4)<<<
This is a bit part of verses. Jesus was talking to His mother who was
calling on Him to resolve the problem of them running out of wine. He
told her that 'His hour had not yet come'. He would have known that
miracles in the wrong place would have been wasted and out of context.
His mother will also have known who He was and that a time would come
when she would see Him perform the miracles she knew would happen.
If you go back and read it in context you will notice that it is the
sigh of a man who knows that His mother knows who _He_ is and what
wonders He can do. All miracles are ageless and have lessons for each
generation. Jesus wasn't anti-women at all, far from it.
Those who want to read more will find it in John Chapter 2 (John 2)
Verse 3-4 , where you can read it in context.
"When the hour had come, He sat down, and the twelve apostles with
Him." Luke 22:14
You see, when His hour did come, 'He knew because He knew all things
to come'.
Carol T
Carol T
> The birth of Jesus was heralded with "Peace on Earth," yet Jesus said,
> "Think not that I am come to send peace: I came not to send peace but a
> sword." (Matthew 10:34) "He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment,
> and buy one." (Luke 22:36) "But those mine enemies, which would not that I
> should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." (Luke 19:27.
> In a parable, but spoken of favorably.)<<<<<<<<<<
Peace comes with a price; like a fruitful tree the bad bits have to be
pruned out so that it can grow gloriously and produce great
generations. God knows that Satan cannot be reasoned with, or trusted,
and that his forces only know violence as a way to win people over.
Therefore only by what they know to fear should they stand broken and
obedient. It's only then, if any are still to be saved, they will come
to understand the message in the Word of God.
Hence, Jesus was honest and told people how it was to be with the
world.
Carol T
Carol T
>>>>>>>>>> The burning of unbelievers during the Inquisition was based
on the words of
> Jesus: "If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is
> withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are
> burned." (John 15:6)
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
"Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself,
unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in
Me." John 15:4
This was a message to _you_ personally, to your children, their
children, and your neighbours children.
What _fruit_ are you bearing for your own branch? If it is not good
for God's children why would you want to be a part of their tree?
Isn't it better to cut off those branches which bear rotten fruits
which sap the goodness out of young fruit?
Any killing during the Inquisition was not done by people who were
part of the vine, but those who wanted power and importance for
'themselves'. They did not know who their neighbours were, therefore
could not have been Christian's.
Carol T
Carol T
>>>>> Jesus looked at his critics "with anger" (Mark 3:5), and
attacked merchants with a whip (John 2:15). He showed his respect for
life by drowning innocent animals (Matthew 8:32). He refused to heal a
sick child until he was
> pressured by the mother (Matthew 15:22-28).<<<<<<<<<<<<
Who challenges Who over what is and isn't work on a Sabbath?
............. Mark 3:5, this is a challenge to men's audacity at
interpreting The laws of God wrongly.
He drove them out of the temple along with the animals with a whip he
made out of cord. How else are they to be treated, that they had the
audacity to stand in a house of God and do what they were doing? Evil
does not understand reasoning. Dispelled from His Father's house with
the fear 'they understand' meant that they would never return, and the
body of the church can be rebuilt without its rotten core.
This is a lesson for all the churches of all time; the work inside
them is for our Father alone.
As for the sick child whose mother sought healing....Parent's who
have children 'vexed by the devil' (or demons) even in today's world
cannot have their children healed by God until the parent understands.
If parent's make The Word of God unworthy to their children they will
allow the demons in through their own lack of faith.
Even a dog is worthy of bread from under the table, so why aren't our
children worthy of the Lord's bread if we love them more than our
animals?
"Then Jesus answered and said to her, "O woman, great is your faith!
Let it be to you as you desire." And her daughter was healed from that
very hour. (Mat 15:28 NKJ)
How great is your faith to save your children and the children around
you from the demons which make them sick and take their childhood
away?
Carol T
Carol T
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "And if thy hand offend
> thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than
> having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be
> quenched." (Mark 9:43)<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
The body in Christ hurts when it cuts off one of it's parts, but it
saves the rest of its body from the silently insidious nature of evil.
Carol T
Carol T
> "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and
> children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot
> be my disciple." (Luke 14:26)<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
This is true, the distance between God and the love for your yourself,
parents, spouse and children is so great that in comparison man can
only understand it as hate. If called a disciple of Jesus' will go
and not look back.
>>>>>>>>> "I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and
the daughter
> against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a
> man's foes shall be they of his own household." (Matthew 10:35-36)<<<<<<<<<<<<<
This is true, so powerful will the love of Christ be that those in His
presents will challenge those who have become Christian's rather than
face their own sin before Him. (as you do now) Jesus told the truth so
that we would know and understand the battles and minds of men.
Carol T
Carol T
> rebuked him: "Let the dead bury their dead." (Matthew 8:22)
They cannot have tended to their family needs and been a disciple of
Jesus, their love of Him had to be more powerful than all things.
Carol T
Carol T
> What Were His Views On Equality And Social Justice?
> Jesus encouraged the beating of slaves: "And that servant [slave], which
> knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his
> will, shall be beaten with many stripes." (Luke 12:47) He never denounced
> servitude, incorporating the master-slave relationship into many of his
> parables.<<<<<<<<<<<<<
This is a part of a parable about making preparation as servants of
The Lord. Jesus was not advocating any method's used in His day,
simply utilising how people behaved at that time to press home a
message. If you are prepared for Him at all times then you will have
your just rewards for the work you do as a steward/servant of His
household.
He didn't need to tell them physical violence was wrong against
another human being as He made it clear what the second Commandment
was.
Carol T
Carol T
>>>>>>>>> He did nothing to alleviate poverty. Rather than sell some
expensive
> ointment to help the poor, Jesus wasted it on himself, saying, "Ye have the
> poor with you always." (Mark 14:3-7)<<<<<<<<<<<
Jesus has done more to relieve poverty than any other human being on
earth. She gave to God unconditionally what was precious to her
because she loved Jesus. It was not His place to stop her anointing
Him so that he could sell it. Jesus was not in the practice of taking
to give, only in teaching people to give unconditionally. The poor
have always been with the church and though the body of the Christian
church people have given and given since the day Jesus died.
Does the devil part with his spoils to feed the poor?
Carol T
Carol T
> No women were chosen as disciples or invited to the Last Supper.
Women were not His disciples, it wouldn't have been fruitful for His
body. Jesus did not devalue women, far from it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What Moral Advice Did Jesus Give?
> "There be eunuchs which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of
> heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it." (Matthew
> 19:12) <<<<<<<<<<<<
There were men who loved Jesus so much that they no longer wanted the
desires of men, they had no need of it. For God it is a great
accolade. Do not feel sorry for them as they had/have so much more
than you could ever know.
Carol T
Carol T
>>>>>>>>>>> Many scholars are doubtful of the historical existence of
Jesus. Albert Schweitzer said, "The historical Jesus will be to our
time a stranger and an enigma." No first-century writer confirms the
Jesus story. <<<<<<<<<<<<<
You might like to read some of the Dead Sea Scroll translations and
their reference to the 'Great Teacher'
Cornelius Tacitus (55-120 AD), "the greatest historian" of ancient
Rome:
Gaius Suetonius Tranquillas, chief secretary of Emperor Hadrian
(117-138 AD):
Flavius Josephus (37-97 AD), court historian for Emperor Vespasian:
Julius Africanus, writing around 221 AD, found a reference in the
writings of Thallus, who wrote a history of the Eastern Mediterranean
around 52 AD, which dealt with the darkness that covered the land
during Jesus's crucifixion:
Pliny the Younger, Roman governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor around 112
AD:
Emperor Trajan, in reply to Pliny:
Emporer Hadrian (117-138 AD), in a letter to Minucius Fundanus, the
Asian proconsul:
The Jewish Talmud, compiled between 70 and 200 AD:
Lucian, a second century Greek satirist:
Mara Bar-Serapion, of Syria, writing between 70 and 200 AD from prison
to motivate his son to emulate wise teachers of the past:
GNOSTICS SOURCES
The Gospel of Truth, probably by Valentius, around 135-160 AD:
The Aprocryphon of John, probably by Saturninus, around 120-130 AD:
The Gospel of Thomas, probably from 140-200 AD:
The Treatise On Resurrection, by uncertain author of the late second
century, to Rheginos:
LOST WORKS QUOTED IN OTHER SOURCES
Acts of Pontius Pilate, reports sent from Pilate to Tiberius, referred
to by Justin Martyr (150 AD):
Phlegon, born about 80 AD, as reported by Origen (185-254 AD),
mentioned that Jesus made certain predictions which had been
fulfilled.
ANCIENT CHRISTIAN SOURCES
(extra-biblical)
Clement, elder of Rome, letter to the Corinthian church (95 AD):
Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, letter to the Trallians (110-115 AD):
Ignatius, letter to the Smyrneans (110-115 AD):
Ignatius, letter to the Magnesians (110-115 AD):
Quadratus, to Emperor Hadrian about 125 AD:
(Pseudo-)Barnabas, written 130-138 AD:
Justin Martyr, to Emperor Antoninus Pius about 150 AD:
Justin Martyr, in Dialogue with Trypho, around 150 AD:
http://www.carlislecofc.org/extrabiblical.htm
Also if you have not read it Psalm 22
Carol T
Carol T
Look at your neighbours and know that those who are in their true
faith have no need of a saviour. If you know of anyone, ask him/her
who their neighbours are that they are above them and cannot see or
relieve their pain or distress.
Which Jewish child will be worthy to be called forward to bring peace
and understanding to _all men_, that they will allow the Jews to rule
over all others and the Nations through the respect and wisdom of
God's ways? In which time is this saviour to come if it is not to be a
time of illiteracy, when a record cannot have been made, or a time
when imagery can stand in the way of love.
How do the Jews fulfil their destiny whilst they deny it has its
pathways?
Carol T
Carol T
> Best rethink that. You are no longer the only Chosen Ones.
They are, they still have the seeds of faith with in them.
Carol T
list...@nospam.net
>"wholey_smoke" <wholey...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<40147...@news.iprimus.com.au>...
>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Many scholars are doubtful of the historical existence of
>Jesus. Albert Schweitzer said, "The historical Jesus will be to our
>time a stranger and an enigma." No first-century writer confirms the
>Jesus story. <<<<<<<<<<<<<
>
>
>You might like to read some of the Dead Sea Scroll translations and
>their reference to the 'Great Teacher'
Even though biblical archaeology is one of my passions, can you
explain to me what any of this thread has to do with cardiology?
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
No.
It is in my heart.
Steve
(in message <298d10h2puqv2pvo9...@4ax.com>):
If you hadn't killfiled me, you would realize that the name of the
group has been changed to sci.med.christianity.
Carol T is going to be baking us all Two Pounds of cookies in between
posting.
You are "off-topic" :-)
--
Steve
Weeding the Lord's Vineyards Since 2003
Sun & Mun_
>> Best rethink that. You are no longer the only Chosen Ones.
>
>
>They are, they still have the seeds of faith with in them.
But there aren't the ONLY ones that have God available to them in a
special, spiritual way.
Sun & Mun_
>Even though biblical archaeology is one of my passions, can you
>explain to me what any of this thread has to do with cardiology?
Christ had a heart.
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
God knows the inner workings of the heart for He created it.
All knowledge that you see posted on SMC about the heart comes from Him.
list...@nospam.net
Oy vey.
Don Kirkman
<9bff2a56.04012...@posting.google.com>:
>"wholey_smoke" <wholey...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<40147...@news.iprimus.com.au>...
>>>>>>>>>>>> Many scholars are doubtful of the historical existence of
>Jesus. Albert Schweitzer said, "The historical Jesus will be to our
>time a stranger and an enigma." No first-century writer confirms the
>Jesus story. <<<<<<<<<<<<<
Schweitzer, like others of his time, was trying to get to the bedrock
historical facts about Jesus' life and teachings. He failed--there
isn't enough incontrovertible evidence to know the facts and only the
facts. What there is, however, is a preponderance of evidence for some
sayings, some actions, some teachings--and a preponderance of evidence
that others are interpretations or later additions to the stories.
>You might like to read some of the Dead Sea Scroll translations and
>their reference to the 'Great Teacher'
Since these were part of an ascetic tradition apart from the main Jewish
culture and Jesus, though he shared some of their ideas, was not part of
the Essene culture, it seems more probable that the Dead Sea scrolls
"Great Teacher" had nothing to do with Jesus.
"The Scrolls give considerable information about the Messianic
expectations of the sectarians. They expected a priestly Messiah, the
Messiah of Aaron. They also believed in a royal or Davidic Messiah, a
blood descendant of King David, the Messiah of Israel. They also
expected that a Teacher would be sent to them as a precursor of the
Messiah, to interpret the Law for the people."
http://www.didjesusexist.com/qumran.html
These are all too late to be very convincing; some are apocryphal and
were never accepted by the Christian church. Some were produced by
individuals or groups later deemed heretical.
>ANCIENT CHRISTIAN SOURCES
>(extra-biblical)
>Clement, elder of Rome, letter to the Corinthian church (95 AD):
>Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, letter to the Trallians (110-115 AD):
>Ignatius, letter to the Smyrneans (110-115 AD):
>Ignatius, letter to the Magnesians (110-115 AD):
>Quadratus, to Emperor Hadrian about 125 AD:
>(Pseudo-)Barnabas, written 130-138 AD:
>Justin Martyr, to Emperor Antoninus Pius about 150 AD:
>Justin Martyr, in Dialogue with Trypho, around 150 AD:
>http://www.carlislecofc.org/extrabiblical.htm
There are reasons why many of the above are "extra-biblical;" at the
time the New Testament canon was finalized in the third and fourth
centuries they were not considered reliable evidence of Jesus'
teachings.
>Also if you have not read it Psalm 22
A poetic religious meditation from around the 5th century BCE can hardly
serve as evidence that Jesus is a historical figure. That he may have
quoted it at his death tells us only that he was an orthodox Jew steeped
in the literature of his people.
--
Don
don...@covad.net
Over Eugenia@hotmail.com Mu_n Over Eugenia
wrote:
>Schweitzer, like others of his time, was trying to get to the bedrock
>historical facts about Jesus' life and teachings. He failed--there
>isn't enough incontrovertible evidence to know the facts and only the
>facts. What there is, however, is a preponderance of evidence for some
>sayings, some actions, some teachings--and a preponderance of evidence
>that others are interpretations or later additions to the stories.
Couldn't disagree with most of that. The Bible sucks as an
historically precise document.
>>You might like to read some of the Dead Sea Scroll translations and
>>their reference to the 'Great Teacher'
>
>Since these were part of an ascetic tradition apart from the main Jewish
>culture and Jesus, though he shared some of their ideas, was not part of
>the Essene culture, it seems more probable that the Dead Sea scrolls
>"Great Teacher" had nothing to do with Jesus.
Maybe, maybe not. Really makes not much difference.
>These are all too late to be very convincing; some are apocryphal and
>were never accepted by the Christian church. Some were produced by
>individuals or groups later deemed heretical.
Sure were.
>>ANCIENT CHRISTIAN SOURCES
>>(extra-biblical)
>>Clement, elder of Rome, letter to the Corinthian church (95 AD):
>>Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, letter to the Trallians (110-115 AD):
>>Ignatius, letter to the Smyrneans (110-115 AD):
>>Ignatius, letter to the Magnesians (110-115 AD):
>>Quadratus, to Emperor Hadrian about 125 AD:
>>(Pseudo-)Barnabas, written 130-138 AD:
>>Justin Martyr, to Emperor Antoninus Pius about 150 AD:
>>Justin Martyr, in Dialogue with Trypho, around 150 AD:
>
>>http://www.carlislecofc.org/extrabiblical.htm
>
>There are reasons why many of the above are "extra-biblical;" at the
>time the New Testament canon was finalized in the third and fourth
>centuries they were not considered reliable evidence of Jesus'
>teachings.
Folks disagree, no doubt about it.
>>Also if you have not read it Psalm 22
>
>A poetic religious meditation from around the 5th century BCE can hardly
>serve as evidence that Jesus is a historical figure. That he may have
>quoted it at his death tells us only that he was an orthodox Jew steeped
>in the literature of his people.
It's all about faith and nothing else.
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap991014.html
Carol T
>>>>>>>>>>>>> What there is, however, is a preponderance of evidence
for some
> sayings, some actions, some teachings--and a preponderance of evidence
> that others are interpretations or later additions to the stories.<<<<<<<
Ummm
>>>>>>>>>> A poetic religious meditation from around the 5th century
BCE can hardly serve as evidence that Jesus is a historical
figure.<<<<<<<<<<<<
"All those who see Me ridicule Me; They shoot out the lip, they shake
the head, saying, "He trusted in the Lord, let Him rescue Him; Let Him
deliver Him, since He delights in Him!" Psalm 22:7-8
"Likewise the chief priests also, mocking with the scribes and elders,
said, "He saved others; Himself He cannot save. If He is the King of
Israel, let Him now come down from the cross, and we will believe Him.
He trusted in God; let Him deliver Him now if He will have Him; for He
said, 'I am the Son of God.' " Mark 27:41-43
>>>>>>>>>>> it seems more probable that the Dead Sea scrolls
> "Great Teacher" had nothing to do with Jesus.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
"Do not morn for him... God will prepare many [books scrolls?...] many
revelations and [...] Examine them and seek and know what will befall
you. But do not damage them by erasure or [we]ar like [....] Do not
bring shame to the priestly headplate.
Thus you will keep up a good reputation for your father and you will
become a sound foundation for your brothers. You will grow and
understand and be glad in the light of the world; you will not be a
disowned vessel [...]" (Frag 24 Dead Sea Scrolls.
A son of the Jews, who was one with God's Spirit, died an excruciating
death in ridicule of all He was through The Word, from conception
until His death. Who was He that a Jews have cried for their own
animals, mad men, children and family before Him?
The destiny of the Jews is in their understanding of the 'true
meaning' of sacrifice through their saviour.
Jesus said "I am the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not
walk in darkness, but have the light of life." (John 8:12)
"As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world." (John
9:5)
Who would want to be in a world of darkness, would you?
I pray that you understand what is meant by the 'Light of the World'
and come to know who it is and be saved by this. As to the Words of
God "Examine them and seek and know what will befall you", and "do not
bring shame to the priestly headplate" as He is the head of your body
in God.
Carol T
Carol T
>>>>>>>>> Carol T is going to be baking us all Two Pounds of cookies
in between
> posting.<<<<<<<<<<<
If it's getting too hot in your lord's garden then I will remind you
that it's where you chose to be.
Why not tell others in this newsgroup whose garden you are so proud to
be weeding, they may not recognise him in your trickery.
Carol T
Carol T
> On 27 Jan 2004 09:24:30 -0800, cteas...@hotmail.com (Carol T) wrote:
>
> >> Best rethink that. You are no longer the only Chosen Ones.
> >
> >
> >They are, they still have the seeds of faith with in them.
>
> But there aren't the ONLY ones that have God available to them in a
> special, spiritual way.
They cannot fulfil their destiny unless they accept The Saviour. They
know that they can only rule with wisdom and love as this is the way
of God for today's world. They cannot rule a nation who does not
understand the fear of God as 'they were taught' unless the whole
nation understands the true meaning of their own sacrifice.
Whilst they do not love their neighbours enough to empathies and know
their pains and distress, and want 'their saviour' to be the saviour
of all men, then their seed will remain dormant. However, as long as
The Word is kept alive amongst them, through the rituals they have
been taught, they will remain God's chosen Ones. When they see this
light, if it is your lifetime, then you will see great things happen
across the world.
"And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.' These
are the words which you shall speak to the children of Israel." Exd
19:6
Their rule is not as masters, but as priests of God for all people.
Fear of their rule as masters has made people commit some terrible
sins in the past, but it has only been through knowing 'some' of the
Word, but not having known it through the Spirit.
Carol T
Mu_n Over Eugenia
>> But there aren't the ONLY ones that have God available to them in a
>> special, spiritual way.
>
>
> They cannot fulfil their destiny unless they accept The Saviour. They
>know that they can only rule with wisdom and love as this is the way
>of God for today's world. They cannot rule a nation who does not
>understand the fear of God as 'they were taught' unless the whole
>nation understands the true meaning of their own sacrifice.
Yes, and I fear this may never happen.
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap991014.html
Carol T
> Yes, and I fear this may never happen.
Oh it will, because they will reach the time when they _are_ to be
saved, the alternative is beyond anything they can bear. It is not to
us to make them Christians, but to remind them that they are a kingdom
of priests who have spread themselves across the world in readiness
for the day. Their sins will be taken away by the blood of their
sacrificial Lamb, The Lamb of God and Saviour of man. The anguish is
still buried under their pride, but they _will_ be saved back into
their faith by Christ and come to know how they are to rule.
"And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.' These
are the words which you shall speak to the children of Israel." Exd
19:6
It's a fearful thing God wants for them and their sons, to be
faultless before others, to know wisdom, and to live by the
Commandments.
Carol T
Mu_n Over Eugenia
>> Yes, and I fear this may never happen.
On 28 Jan 2004 11:27:57 -0800, cteas...@hotmail.com (Carol T) wrote:
>Oh it will, because they will reach the time when they _are_ to be
>saved, the alternative is beyond anything they can bear. It is not to
>us to make them Christians, but to remind them that they are a kingdom
>of priests who have spread themselves across the world in readiness
>for the day. Their sins will be taken away by the blood of their
>sacrificial Lamb, The Lamb of God and Saviour of man. The anguish is
>still buried under their pride, but they _will_ be saved back into
>their faith by Christ and come to know how they are to rule.
I certainly hope so but I don't see the signs, yet, that the Jews are
anywhere near ready. Do you think that a few or a majority or all Jews
will ultimately be saved?
Don Kirkman
<9bff2a56.04012...@posting.google.com>:
>Don Kirkman <don...@covad.net> wrote in message news:<tbgd1011cb0doqvif...@4ax.com>...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What there is, however, is a preponderance of evidence
>for some
>> sayings, some actions, some teachings--and a preponderance of evidence
>> that others are interpretations or later additions to the stories.<<<<<<<
>>>>>>>>>>> A poetic religious meditation from around the 5th century
>BCE can hardly serve as evidence that Jesus is a historical
>figure.<<<<<<<<<<<<
>"All those who see Me ridicule Me; They shoot out the lip, they shake
>the head, saying, "He trusted in the Lord, let Him rescue Him; Let Him
>deliver Him, since He delights in Him!" Psalm 22:7-8
>"Likewise the chief priests also, mocking with the scribes and elders,
>said, "He saved others; Himself He cannot save. If He is the King of
>Israel, let Him now come down from the cross, and we will believe Him.
>He trusted in God; let Him deliver Him now if He will have Him; for He
>said, 'I am the Son of God.' " Mark 27:41-43
>>>>>>>>>>>> it seems more probable that the Dead Sea scrolls
>> "Great Teacher" had nothing to do with Jesus.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>"Do not morn for him... God will prepare many [books scrolls?...] many
>revelations and [...] Examine them and seek and know what will befall
>you. But do not damage them by erasure or [we]ar like [....] Do not
>bring shame to the priestly headplate.
[...]
>I pray that you understand what is meant by the 'Light of the World'
>and come to know who it is and be saved by this. As to the Words of
>God "Examine them and seek and know what will befall you", and "do not
>bring shame to the priestly headplate" as He is the head of your body
>in God.
I understand what I understand. I don't intend to debate my own
religious beliefs with anybody. My entire theme here has been the lack
of credible evidence for the bulk of the statements being made*, and the
fact that the particular religious viewpoint being presented is not
representative of most Christian belief, let alone the beliefs of other
religious people of the same tradition such as Jews and Muslims.
* No one has responded to my earlier statement that, because the
context of the original writings is being ignored when small sections
are lifted and quoted, the original meaning is missed or misinterpreted.
--
Don
don...@covad.net
Carol T
>>>>>>>>> I certainly hope so but I don't see the signs, yet, that the
Jews are
> anywhere near ready. Do you think that a few or a majority or all Jews
> will ultimately be saved?<<<<<<<<<<<
Pray for them to fulfil their destiny through the Holy Spirit and they
will see their saviour. All those who become true to their faith will
be saved and take their rightful place. There will be enough.
Carol T
Carol T
> * No one has responded to my earlier statement that, because the
> context of the original writings is being ignored when small sections
> are lifted and quoted, the original meaning is missed or misinterpreted.<<<<<<<<<
Do _you_ know the writings and their context?
Carol T
Don Kirkman
See my last response to John for an example.
--
Don
don...@covad.net
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
A simple yes or no would have sufficed.
Christ teaches as written in Matthew 5:
37Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from
the evil one.
May God add His blessings to the writing of His Word here within SMC, in Christ's name.
Amen.
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/?L21532147
Don Kirkman
I
See my response to John on Jan. 28 [Message-ID:
<tf4g10tj462ohh4fp...@4ax.com>] for an example.
--
Don
don...@covad.net
Carol T
> See my last response to John for an example.<<<<<<<<<<<
Newsgroups are crammed packed with people who take a great deal of
interest in 'religion, already have, or are doing religious degrees;
and yet they don't know 'The Word'. The devil loves these people to do
his work, its perfect for him to have the self declared wise tricked
into his employment.
It's like talking about the light switch, the arm, the hand and the
finger that flicks it, without ever seeing the light bulb light up the
room. Those who know The Word through the Holy Spirit, recognise who
these people are and they see who is by their side, keeping them in
the darkness.
I pray that you will Hear The Word through the Holy Spirit, that you
will come to know Him who has given these Words and be saved through
His blood.
"Now they have known that all things which You have given Me are from
You. For I have given to them the words which You have given Me; and
they have received them, and have known surely that I came forth from
You; and they have believed that You sent Me. I pray for them. I do
not pray for the world but for those whom You have given Me, for they
are Yours." John 17:7-9
Carol T
Don Kirkman
in article <40201940...@heartmdphd.com>:
>Don Kirkman wrote:
>> It seems to me I heard somewhere that Carol T wrote in article
>> <9bff2a56.04020...@posting.google.com>:
>> >Don Kirkman <don...@covad.net> wrote in message
>> >> * No one has responded to my earlier statement that, because the
>> >> context of the original writings is being ignored when small sections
>> >> are lifted and quoted, the original meaning is missed or misinterpreted.<<<<<<<<<
>> >Do _you_ know the writings and their context?
>> See my last response to John for an example.
>A simple yes or no would have sufficed.
One picture (or example) is worth a thousand words.
>Christ teaches as written in Matthew 5:
>
>37Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from
>the evil one.
Jesus was not talking about teaching by example but about the way some
of his fellow Jews drew casuistical distinctions and abused the truth in
ways that disrupted the communal life. Hey, if everyone would only live
by that the world and everything in it would be so much quieter and more
peaceful than it is. Maybe we could even try it his way here in smc.
--
Don
don...@covad.net
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> It seems to me I heard somewhere that Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
> in article <40201940...@heartmdphd.com>:
>
> >Don Kirkman wrote:
>
> >> It seems to me I heard somewhere that Carol T wrote in article
> >> <9bff2a56.04020...@posting.google.com>:
>
> >> >Don Kirkman <don...@covad.net> wrote in message
>
> >> >> * No one has responded to my earlier statement that, because the
> >> >> context of the original writings is being ignored when small sections
> >> >> are lifted and quoted, the original meaning is missed or misinterpreted.<<<<<<<<<
>
> >> >Do _you_ know the writings and their context?
>
> >> See my last response to John for an example.
>
> >A simple yes or no would have sufficed.
>
> One picture (or example) is worth a thousand words.
>
Often a thousand words is 999 words too many.
>
> >Christ teaches as written in Matthew 5:
> >
> >37Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from
> >the evil one.
>
> Jesus was not talking about teaching by example
Nor are we discussing teaching by example.
> but about the way some
> of his fellow Jews drew casuistical distinctions and abused the truth in
> ways that disrupted the communal life.
In the context of the rest of Matthew 5, Jesus was not judging others but rather was
teaching His disciples.
> Hey, if everyone would only live
> by that the world and everything in it would be so much quieter and more
> peaceful than it is.
But we know that satan and those under his influence will not rest while there is peace.
> Maybe we could even try it his way here in smc.
Look around you. Christ's teachings and the events of His life in this world are being
reenacted in abstraction here.
>
> --
> Don
> don...@covad.net
Thanks for being civil, Don. It is sincerely appreciated :-)
Servant to the humblest person in the universe,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Carol T
>>>>>>>>>>Hey, if everyone would only live
> by that the world and everything in it would be so much quieter and more
> peaceful than it is. <<
Dear Don,
Did you mean world, or The Word? The Word of God says......
"Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince,
rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. For the time will
come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their
own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for
themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the
truth, and be turned aside to fables. But you be watchful in all
things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your
ministry." NKJ 2 Timothy 4:2-5
Could you become an evangelist for your beliefs as willingly as you
would have God's Word kept from all men?
Carol T
Don Kirkman
>Don Kirkman wrote:
>> It seems to me I heard somewhere that Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
>> in article <40201940...@heartmdphd.com>:
>> >Don Kirkman wrote:
>> >> It seems to me I heard somewhere that Carol T wrote in article
>> >> <9bff2a56.04020...@posting.google.com>:
>> >> >Don Kirkman <don...@covad.net> wrote in message
>> >> >> * No one has responded to my earlier statement that, because the
>> >> >> context of the original writings is being ignored when small sections
>> >> >> are lifted and quoted, the original meaning is missed or misinterpreted.<<<<<<<<<
>> >> >Do _you_ know the writings and their context?
>> >> See my last response to John for an example.
>> >A simple yes or no would have sufficed.
>> One picture (or example) is worth a thousand words.
>Often a thousand words is 999 words too many.
You can say that again--and probably will.
>> >Christ teaches as written in Matthew 5:
>> >37Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from
>> >the evil one.
>> Jesus was not talking about teaching by example
>Nor are we discussing teaching by example.
But I was *practicing* teaching by example. Carol asked about my
specific knowledge. I pointed her to an example of my knowledge, thus
answering her in a way that would be easier for her to accept or harder
for her to refute than a simple "yes" or "no." See below for another
example.
>> but about the way some
>> of his fellow Jews drew casuistical distinctions and abused the truth in
>> ways that disrupted the communal life.
>In the context of the rest of Matthew 5, Jesus was not judging others but rather was
>teaching His disciples.
You'll notice I didn't say he was "judging others." But he was teaching
his disciples *not to follow [some] traditions as customs as others
did*. "You have heard that it was said to the men of old, 'You shall
not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.'"
He then gives his disciples specific examples and instructions not to
swear oaths; their simple words are sufficient, and are to be followed
through--the honesty and integrity of true disciples doesn't need to be
backed by elaborate oaths and promises.
There is a context here; the truth is not in picking some words and
brandishing them like a weapon, but in getting to the context and the
heart of the teaching.
>> Hey, if everyone would only live
>> by that the world and everything in it would be so much quieter and more
>> peaceful than it is.
>But we know that satan and those under his influence will not rest while there is peace.
>> Maybe we could even try it his way here in smc.
>Look around you. Christ's teachings and the events of His life in this world are being
>reenacted in abstraction here.
I don't see it. I don't see acts of simple concern and love from those
who profess to be his disciples. I don't see his attitude that those
who are not against us are for us. What I seem to see is more akin to
Pharisaic self-righteousness than to humble service and openness to all
God's creation.
--
Don
don...@covad.net
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> It seems to me I heard somewhere that Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
> in article <4021947B...@heartmdphd.com>:
>
> >Don Kirkman wrote:
>
> >> It seems to me I heard somewhere that Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
> >> in article <40201940...@heartmdphd.com>:
>
> >> >Don Kirkman wrote:
>
> >> >> It seems to me I heard somewhere that Carol T wrote in article
> >> >> <9bff2a56.04020...@posting.google.com>:
>
> >> >> >Don Kirkman <don...@covad.net> wrote in message
>
> >> >> >> * No one has responded to my earlier statement that, because the
> >> >> >> context of the original writings is being ignored when small sections
> >> >> >> are lifted and quoted, the original meaning is missed or misinterpreted.<<<<<<<<<
>
> >> >> >Do _you_ know the writings and their context?
>
> >> >> See my last response to John for an example.
>
> >> >A simple yes or no would have sufficed.
>
> >> One picture (or example) is worth a thousand words.
>
> >Often a thousand words is 999 words too many.
>
> You can say that again--and probably will.
Once is enough :-)
> >> >Christ teaches as written in Matthew 5:
>
> >> >37Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from
> >> >the evil one.
>
> >> Jesus was not talking about teaching by example
>
> >Nor are we discussing teaching by example.
>
> But I was *practicing* teaching by example. Carol asked about my
> specific knowledge. I pointed her to an example of my knowledge, thus
> answering her in a way that would be easier for her to accept or harder
> for her to refute than a simple "yes" or "no." See below for another
> example.
Then you should say "yes" first and then give the example.
> >> but about the way some
> >> of his fellow Jews drew casuistical distinctions and abused the truth in
> >> ways that disrupted the communal life.
>
> >In the context of the rest of Matthew 5, Jesus was not judging others but rather was
> >teaching His disciples.
>
> You'll notice I didn't say he was "judging others."
You did not say it but implied judgement when you wrote:
"some of his fellow Jews drew casuistical distinctions and abused the
truth in
ways that disrupted the communal life"
> But he was teaching
> his disciples *not to follow [some] traditions as customs as others
> did*.
He was teaching His disciples how to do things better in the eyes of
God.
> "You have heard that it was said to the men of old, 'You shall
> not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.'"
> He then gives his disciples specific examples and instructions not to
> swear oaths; their simple words are sufficient, and are to be followed
> through--the honesty and integrity of true disciples doesn't need to be
> backed by elaborate oaths and promises.
You should note that He does not judge those who do swear oaths
truthfully.
> There is a context here; the truth is not in picking some words and
> brandishing them like a weapon, but in getting to the context and the
> heart of the teaching.
The truth is independent of the messenger.
> >> Hey, if everyone would only live
> >> by that the world and everything in it would be so much quieter and more
> >> peaceful than it is.
>
> >But we know that satan and those under his influence will not rest while there is peace.
Simply observe the frenzy of Bob Pastorio and Steve-nospam.
> >> Maybe we could even try it his way here in smc.
>
> >Look around you. Christ's teachings and the events of His life in this world are being
> >reenacted in abstraction here.
>
> I don't see it.
Would suggest you open your eyes (or turn off the filter :-)
> I don't see acts of simple concern and love from those
> who profess to be his disciples.
How would you explain the 2PD approach?
> I don't see his attitude that those
> who are not against us are for us.
How would you explain our current discussion?
> What I seem to see is more akin to
> Pharisaic self-righteousness than to humble service and openness to all
> God's creation.
It would seem that what you see is colored by your beliefs.
I will pray for you.
May you accept Christ as your Lord and Savior, someday, so that you
too may have eternal life and the boundless riches of God's kingdom.
Servant to the humblest person in the universe,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Bob
>>>But we know that satan and those under his influence will not rest while there is peace.
> Simply observe the frenzy of Bob Pastorio and Steve-nospam.
<LOL> Skewering the falsity of Chung and highlighting his failures as
a person and as a professional are suddenly *bad* things. Poor
demented Chung. Poor duplicitous Chung.
> How would you explain the 2PD approach?
In a few words, a stupidly simplistic bit of oversimplification of a
complex series of questions. Born of a misinterpretation of a movie,
rigidly insisted upon even after getting more substantive information,
and propounded with all the scientific rigor and careful forethought
of random paint splashes thrown out an upstairs window.
> How would you explain our current discussion?
>
>> What I seem to see is more akin to
>>Pharisaic self-righteousness than to humble service and openness to all
>>God's creation.
Look. Something unique. A question answered before it was asked.
Bob
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
>
> >>>But we know that satan and those under his influence will not rest while there is peace.
>
> > Simply observe the frenzy of Bob Pastorio and Steve-nospam.
>
> <hiss>
>
> > How would you explain the 2PD approach?
>
> <hiss>
> > How would you explain our current discussion?
> >
> >> What I seem to see is more akin to
> >>Pharisaic self-righteousness than to humble service and openness to all
> >>God's creation.
>
> <hiss>
>
> Bob "raging and self-confident" Pastorio
You poor guy.
You remain in my prayers, neighbor.
FYI Note:
Bob's pathological obsessions are related to the 2 pound diet approach (2PD) which is described
completely at:
http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp
Though Dr. Chung invented this approach, he did not initiate the Usenet discussion(s). His
participation in this discussion(s) has been voluntary and has been conducted in the spirit of
community service. His motivation has been entirely altruistic and has arisen from his
religious beliefs as a Christian. Jesus freely gave of Himself to better the health of folks
He touched:
http://www.heartmdphd.com/healer.asp
From the outset, it has been clear that there are those who are vehemently opposed to the 2
pound diet approach. They have debated Dr. Chung on every perceived weakness of the 2 pound
diet approach and have lost the argument soundly at every point:
http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtlossfaqs.asp
These debates are archived on Google in their entirety within this discussion thread(s).
However, instead of conceding gracefully that they've lost the argument(s), certain parties
have redirected their hatred of the 2 pound diet approach toward its author. The rationale
appears to be "if you can not discredit the message then try to discredit the messenger."
Initially, these folks accused the messenger of "trolling." A "troll" is someone who posts
under the cloak of anonymity messages with no redeeming discussion value and with the sole
purpose of starting "flame" wars.
These hateful folks lost credibility with this accusation when the following observations were
made:
(1) Dr. Chung has not been posting anonymously.
(2) The 2PD has been on-topic for the Usenet discussion groups hosting the discussion(s).
(a) Those who are failing low-carbing can dovetail LC with the 2PD to achieve near-ideal
weight.
(b) Obese diabetics improve their blood glucose control when their weight becomes
near-ideal.
(c) For (b) see: http://makeashorterlink.com/?V5D042C47
(3) Dr. Chung did not start the discussion(s).
(4) The 2 pound diet approach is 100% free (no profit motive).
(5) Dr. Chung's credentials are real and easily verified on-line (including jpegs of the actual
diplomas).
Full of hatred, frustration, and desperation, certain individuals have tried to attack Dr.
Chung's credentials knowing full well that they were attempting to libel him. One notable
example is Mr. Pastorio:
http://www.heartmdphd.com/libel.asp
When the full light was cast on Mr. Pastorio's libelous statements, the hateful folks hiding in
the darkness of anonymity only hissed louder in support of their fallen hero.
Fortunately, those who have been following this discussion(s) either actively or as lurkers can
easily dismiss the hisses, for what they are, using the on-line third-party resources at:
http://www.heartmdphd.com/profile.asp
where Dr. Chung's credentials can be verified many times over and libelous claims that
credentials were bought are easily and summarily debunked.
Moreover, readers need only make the following observations concerning the anon posters who
continue to hiss (ie JC Der Koenig and Mack):
(1) They are anonymous and thus they expect to have no credibility (or accountability).
(2) They are by their Usenet history courtesy of Google, unsavory characters.
(3) They have not added anything to the discussion(s) except to deliver one-sided insults.
(4) They complain about alleged cross-posts from Dr. Chung by cross-posting.
(5) They do not complain about cross-posts from folks who attack the 2PD or its author.
and conclude that these anon posters deserve only their kill file.
It is my hope that the above brings new readers of this thread up to speed.
It will remain my pleasure to continue the discussion(s) about the 2PD above the din of hissing
from the peanut gallery.
Servant to the humblest person in the universe,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Don Kirkman
>Don Kirkman <don...@covad.net> wrote in message news:<vm9820dj3nelmh51l...@4ax.com>...
>> It seems to me I heard somewhere that Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
>> in article <4021947B...@heartmdphd.com>:
>> >Don Kirkman wrote:
>> >> It seems to me I heard somewhere that Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
>> >> in article <40201940...@heartmdphd.com>:
>> >> >Don Kirkman wrote:
>> >> >> It seems to me I heard somewhere that Carol T wrote in article
>> >> >> <9bff2a56.04020...@posting.google.com>:
>> >> >> >Don Kirkman <don...@covad.net> wrote in message
>> >> >> >> * No one has responded to my earlier statement that, because the
>> >> >> >> context of the original writings is being ignored when small sections
>> >> >> >> are lifted and quoted, the original meaning is missed or misinterpreted.<<<<<<<<<
>> >> >> >Do _you_ know the writings and their context?
>> >> >> See my last response to John for an example.
>> >> >A simple yes or no would have sufficed.
>> >> One picture (or example) is worth a thousand words.
[...]
>> >> >Christ teaches as written in Matthew 5:
>> >> >37Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from
>> >> >the evil one.
>> >> Jesus was not talking about teaching by example
>> >Nor are we discussing teaching by example.
>> But I was *practicing* teaching by example. Carol asked about my
>> specific knowledge. I pointed her to an example of my knowledge, thus
>> answering her in a way that would be easier for her to accept or harder
>> for her to refute than a simple "yes" or "no." See below for another
>> example.
>Then you should say "yes" first and then give the example.
I'm sorry, I don't recognize you as the class monitor nor do I recognize
that as Biblical teaching. I've successfully held my own in graduate
level discussions, and will continue to use my methods.
>> >> but about the way some
>> >> of his fellow Jews drew casuistical distinctions and abused the truth in
>> >> ways that disrupted the communal life.
>> >In the context of the rest of Matthew 5, Jesus was not judging others but rather was
>> >teaching His disciples.
>> You'll notice I didn't say he was "judging others."
>
>You did not say it but implied judgement when you wrote:
>"some of his fellow Jews drew casuistical distinctions and abused the
>truth in
>ways that disrupted the communal life"
Not every statement about behavior is a judgment.
>> But he was teaching
>> his disciples *not to follow [some] traditions as customs as others
>> did*.
>He was teaching His disciples how to do things better in the eyes of
>God.
That's pretty much what I wrote.
>> "You have heard that it was said to the men of old, 'You shall
>> not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.'"
>> He then gives his disciples specific examples and instructions not to
>> swear oaths; their simple words are sufficient, and are to be followed
>> through--the honesty and integrity of true disciples doesn't need to be
>> backed by elaborate oaths and promises.
>You should note that He does not judge those who do swear oaths
>truthfully.
You should note that he was teaching his disciples not to swear oaths at
all. You should also note that he *does* tell them not to do things the
elders taught; "anything more than this comes from evil." The issue
isn't about the truth of oaths but about whether oaths are needed to
validate honesty and responsibility. Jesus says that isn't the better
way to go.
>> There is a context here; the truth is not in picking some words and
>> brandishing them like a weapon, but in getting to the context and the
>> heart of the teaching.
>The truth is independent of the messenger.
Non sequitur. Only a messenger who has dug deep enough to find the
truth can pass on a truthful message. Skimming words off the top
doesn't get there.
[...]
>Simply observe the frenzy of Bob Pastorio and Steve-nospam.
I'm not a psychiatrist *either*, but I don't see frenzy so much as a
robust use of reductio ad absurdum debate, sometimes becoming rather
risible. "Risible" from the root "to laugh."
>> >Look around you. Christ's teachings and the events of His life in this world are being
>> >reenacted in abstraction here.
>> I don't see it.
>Would suggest you open your eyes (or turn off the filter :-)
Would suggest you give specific examples that can be accepted or
rejected. An abstract statement of opinion doesn't carry much
argumentative weight, especially in the current atmosphere of this
newsgroup. Who has been crucified? Who teaches in the places of
worship? Who turns the other cheek? What exactly are you talking
about? Martyrdom?
>> I don't see acts of simple concern and love from those
>> who profess to be his disciples.
>How would you explain the 2PD approach?
Another diet fad without as yet any clinical validation. The major
difference from the others is that it is apparently non-commercial, but
the zealous promotion is there.
>> I don't see his attitude that those
>> who are not against us are for us.
>How would you explain our current discussion?
"Our" meaning the users here? Tremendously overheated, much mutual
disrespect of other disputants, large doses of unfounded or untutored
claims.
>> What I seem to see is more akin to
>> Pharisaic self-righteousness than to humble service and openness to all
>> God's creation.
>It would seem that what you see is colored by your beliefs.
Perhaps so. I learned about Pharisaic self-righteousness from the
teachings of Jesus and his followers.
>May you accept Christ as your Lord and Savior, someday, so that you
>too may have eternal life and the boundless riches of God's kingdom.
Your presumption is insulting and offputting. I had read the Bible
cover to cover well before you were born, I wager, and spent a
considerable part of my life teaching these things to believers and
interested unbelievers. But I never presumed to push my beliefs or
information on others when it was not relevant to the stated topic of
discussion.
>Servant to the humblest person in the universe,
So is this offputting.
--
Don
don...@covad.net
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
And, I'm sorry you are offended by my suggestion.
>
> >> >> but about the way some
> >> >> of his fellow Jews drew casuistical distinctions and abused the truth in
> >> >> ways that disrupted the communal life.
>
> >> >In the context of the rest of Matthew 5, Jesus was not judging others but rather was
> >> >teaching His disciples.
>
> >> You'll notice I didn't say he was "judging others."
> >
> >You did not say it but implied judgement when you wrote:
>
> >"some of his fellow Jews drew casuistical distinctions and abused the
> >truth in
> >ways that disrupted the communal life"
>
> Not every statement about behavior is a judgment.
>
Correct. Now, is it your claim that your statement about was not judgment?
>
> >> But he was teaching
> >> his disciples *not to follow [some] traditions as customs as others
> >> did*.
>
> >He was teaching His disciples how to do things better in the eyes of
> >God.
>
> That's pretty much what I wrote.
>
What you and I wrote are not the same. What you wrote described a commandment. What I wrote described a
suggestion.
>
> >> "You have heard that it was said to the men of old, 'You shall
> >> not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.'"
> >> He then gives his disciples specific examples and instructions not to
> >> swear oaths; their simple words are sufficient, and are to be followed
> >> through--the honesty and integrity of true disciples doesn't need to be
> >> backed by elaborate oaths and promises.
>
> >You should note that He does not judge those who do swear oaths
> >truthfully.
>
> You should note that he was teaching his disciples not to swear oaths at
> all.
He was teaching them how when folks swear oaths, often they do not follow through (they swear the oaths to
convince people to trust them... implying they have a history of betraying that trust). The message is
that instead of swearing oaths, be trustworthy, and no one will compel you to swear an oath.
> You should also note that he *does* tell them not to do things the
> elders taught; "anything more than this comes from evil."
You should also note that Jesus prefaced His teachings in Mark 5 with:
17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not
come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and
earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any
means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who
breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same
will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches
these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that
unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the
law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
This would indicate that your interpretation that Jesus was trying to teach His disciples to disregard the
past teachings of the elders is probably incorrect.
> The issue
> isn't about the truth of oaths but about whether oaths are needed to
> validate honesty and responsibility. Jesus says that isn't the better
> way to go.
>
Jesus taught that the oaths were not necessary. However, there may be instances where oaths are required
by law, and Jesus left things open with His preface remarks.
>
> >> There is a context here; the truth is not in picking some words and
> >> brandishing them like a weapon, but in getting to the context and the
> >> heart of the teaching.
>
> >The truth is independent of the messenger.
>
> Non sequitur.
Not really. You were trying to define truth by the qualities of the messenger.
> Only a messenger who has dug deep enough to find the
> truth can pass on a truthful message.
A carrier pigeon can pass on a truthful message without doing any digging.
> Skimming words off the top
> doesn't get there.
>
Again, truth is independent of the messenger.
>
> [...]
>
> >Simply observe the frenzy of Bob Pastorio and Steve-nospam.
>
> I'm not a psychiatrist *either*,
Do you have to be a marine biologist to recognize that sharks are in the middle of a feeding frenzy?
> but I don't see frenzy so much as a
> robust use of reductio ad absurdum debate, sometimes becoming rather
> risible. "Risible" from the root "to laugh."
>
Try to be more truthful.
>
> >> >Look around you. Christ's teachings and the events of His life in this world are being
> >> >reenacted in abstraction here.
>
> >> I don't see it.
>
> >Would suggest you open your eyes (or turn off the filter :-)
>
> Would suggest you give specific examples that can be accepted or
> rejected.
Dr. Nagler tempted me to reject Christ.
> An abstract statement of opinion doesn't carry much
> argumentative weight, especially in the current atmosphere of this
> newsgroup. Who has been crucified?
Steve-nospam has "crucified" me several times.
Bob "raging and self-confident" Pastorio has "crucified" Mu innumerable times.
> Who teaches in the places of
> worship?
SMC has become a place of worship. Carol T and John have been doing a lot of teaching.
> Who turns the other cheek?
I have several times:
http://www.heartmdphd.com/libel.asp
> What exactly are you talking
> about? Martyrdom?
No.
>
>
> >> I don't see acts of simple concern and love from those
> >> who profess to be his disciples.
>
> >How would you explain the 2PD approach?
>
> Another diet fad without as yet any clinical validation.
There is a surgical (bariatric) equivalent that has been clinically validated.
> The major
> difference from the others is that it is apparently non-commercial,
It is.
> but
> the zealous promotion is there.
>
The "promotion" arises from the zealous opposition.
>
> >> I don't see his attitude that those
> >> who are not against us are for us.
>
> >How would you explain our current discussion?
>
> "Our" meaning the users here?
"Our" meaning "you and I."
> Tremendously overheated, much mutual
> disrespect of other disputants, large doses of unfounded or untutored
> claims.
>
Can't you imagine Jesus Christ in the thick of this?
>
> >> What I seem to see is more akin to
> >> Pharisaic self-righteousness than to humble service and openness to all
> >> God's creation.
>
> >It would seem that what you see is colored by your beliefs.
>
> Perhaps so. I learned about Pharisaic self-righteousness from the
> teachings of Jesus and his followers.
>
A more objective person would have learned about Pharisaic self-righteousness from the Pharisees.
>
> >May you accept Christ as your Lord and Savior, someday, so that you
> >too may have eternal life and the boundless riches of God's kingdom.
>
> Your presumption is insulting and offputting.
Sorry you find the truth insulting and offputting.
> I had read the Bible
> cover to cover well before you were born,
And Hitler likely read the Bible cover to cover well before you were born. I don't see the relevance. Do
you?
> I wager, and spent a
> considerable part of my life teaching these things to believers and
> interested unbelievers.
Why would your teaching involve wagering?
> But I never presumed to push my beliefs or
> information on others when it was not relevant to the stated topic of
> discussion.
Am I forcing you to read this?
>
>
> >Servant to the humblest person in the universe,
>
> So is this offputting.
>
Again, sorry the truth offputs you.
> --
> Don
> don...@covad.net
Truthfully,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/
Carol T
Dear Don,
"Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not
swear falsely, but shall perform your oaths to the Lord.' NKJ Mathew
5:33
If you swear an oath, it should only be to the Lord. Therefore if you
marry in church, swear on the Bible in court, or swear a allegiance
your king and country in God's name; then with true fear of the Lord
you will keep your oaths. Any other oath, to any other name or idol,
is worthless, as The Lord's power reigns over all. The fear of the
Lord , through His love, will make a worthy oath stand and serve all
others well (even no-believers.) No true believer will take an
oath by God and then openly lie on that oath without the deep personal
pain experienced by letting God down. Wars have been fought and won,
not because men have been prepared to die for their country
particularly, but because men have sworn to God that they would die
for their country if they are called to. At the point of death the
fear of God is paramount over a soldiers decision to carry on the
fight to the bitter end. This is the true worth of an oath of a
believer before their Lord God.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I had read the Bible
> cover to cover well before you were born, I wager, and spent a
> considerable part of my life teaching these things to believers and
> interested unbelievers.<<<<<<<<<<<<
You made me think of something my grandmother (slightly eccentric at
times) said to an elderly lady who swept through a shop door which was
being held open by a youngster. The door swung back at the youngster
quite hard and there wasn't so much as a thank you. She ran after her
and tapped her on her shoulder and said something like, "My dear, just
because we are older than these delightful young people, it doesn't
make us better than them that we can't say thank you, don't you
agree?"
Maybe the elderly lady who swept through the door was a very learned
lady, who had read many books including the Bible. Maybe she thought
that her age bought her a right of place over the younger generation,
who knows?
Anyway, I happen to think that age should buy a right of place, I
have a great deal of respect for the collective wisdom of age; but not
the right of absolute righteousness in matters, especially faith.
Children are some the greatest evangelists of all and they are not
well read at all. Jesus was comparably young in the faith stakes and
I expect many a Rabbi said similar words to yours around Him.
I heard an elderly minister say he'd taught from the Bible all His
life and he did all the right things 'according to the church' who
employed him too. Then one day the Holy Spirit fell on him quite
unexpectedly and he realised how wrong he'd been in all the right he
had taught others, in the comfort he'd given and the wisdom he'd
dispensed. The constraints of his faith had kept him away from its
essence, but he didn't know that there was so much more. Now in
retirement The Word is alive for him through the Spirit, but not as
the well read book it once was. And this is what drives his evangelism
today, in all the places he goes at any time of the day.
>>>>>>>>>> But I never presumed to push my beliefs or
> information on others when it was not relevant to the stated topic of
> discussion.<<<<<<<<<<<
I confess that I do, and I also confess that I didn't at one time when
I have had the chance to. If anyone uses the Bible out of context,
but they have the Spirit with them, it will be righted by the Spirit,
I have no doubt about that. I also believe that if it is used to
manipulate and hurt other's feelings then people will reap their
reward for this too.
Non-believers can only come to the Father through Christ. If we keep
Christ away from them by hiding our faith because 'we' are deciding
its appropriate time and place, then whose message are we teaching?
Did Jesus only teach in God's house between set hours on a Sunday, did
he chose a court or time where His Word was inappropriate?
<<<<> >Servant to the humblest person in the universe,<<<<<<<<<
Why do you find this off putting, you don't say ?
Carol T
list...@nospam.net
>Dear Don,
[COLOSSAL SNIP]
[ For anyone else who got a headache reading this, take two tablets
and call me in the morning :-) ]
>Carol T
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Though Don is likely to find everything that you have written to be off putting...
..well put, Carol :-)
May God continue to bless you and yours, in Christ's name.
Servant to the humblest person in the universe,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/
--
Who is the humblest person in the universe?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?W1F522557
What is all this about?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?N13D32F57
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> On 11 Feb 2004 13:17:55 -0800, cteas...@hotmail.com (Carol T) wrote:
>
> >Dear Don,
>
> <listerner not listening>
>
> >Carol T
What are you fearful of, neighbor?
Servant to the humblest person in the universe,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/
--
list...@nospam.net
<and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
>list...@nospam.net wrote:
>
>> On 11 Feb 2004 13:17:55 -0800, cteas...@hotmail.com (Carol T) wrote:
>>
>> >Dear Don,
>>
>> <listerner not listening>
>>
>> >Carol T
>
>What are you fearful of, neighbor?
>
>
>Servant to the humblest person in the universe,
>
>Andrew
>
>--
>Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
>Board-Certified Cardiologist
>http://www.heartmdphd.com/
And you have no sense of humor, too! ;-)
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Spiritual matters aren't funny.
Obsessively paranoid over-reaction by anti-christians to spiritual matters
(see recent AA pilot incident) is funny.
Here's a re-creation:
Ok SMC subscribers...
Those of you who are Christian, raise your hands.
(Carol, John, Mu and I raise our hands).
Now, those of you who are not Christian, consider finding these Christian
folks (with their hands raised) and talk to them about their faith.
(Bob Pastorio, Steve-nospam, Stephen Nagler, Matti Narkia, Jim Chinnis, Jeff
Utz and Don Kirkman start wailing about being attacked and abused).
Meanwhile, you, Thorsten, Annia, Dr. Chaos, Sharon, Janet, Nigel, Francis, Al
et al are wondering why the anti-christians are having such a fit.
:-)
Truth is simple.
Servant to the humblest person in the universe,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/
--
Bob
> list...@nospam.net wrote:
>
>>On 11 Feb 2004 13:17:55 -0800, cteas...@hotmail.com (Carol T) wrote:
>>
>>>Dear Don,
>>
>><listerner not listening>
>>
>>>Carol T
>
> What are you fearful of, neighbor?
<clears throat> Ahem. <puts on lab coat) It's my considered
diagnosis... <takes off glasses like the doctors in the aspirin
commercials, for additional sincerity> that "neighbor" is fearful of
getting a new, freshly reported out syndrome called "hearing AIDS"
from listening to all this fatuous drivel. Before you know it, those
people need acyclov-ear TID.
That'll be $175. Talk to the nurse on the way out. <trying to be
"well-paid" like Chung says he is>
> Servant to the humblest person in the universe,
I still like my version of this where I posted, "Serpent to the
humblest person in the universe." But only Chung would so trivialize
his "buddy" J. Christ.
> Andrew
Good old Andrew. Not Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PHD anymore. Just one of
the guys. Next it'll be Andy. Then after a suitable time, that old
high school nickname. Squiggy. Good old Squiggy Chung, the geek who
didn't have one date in 4 years, and was routinely pushed around by
the jocks, the Middle school chorus and the girls on the chess team.
Squiggy spent his time with the books and look what it's gotten him.
Have a bit of pity for poor socially inept Chung. It wasn't his fault.
Bob
Steve
(in message <5f83e0cd37cbbb1e...@news.teranews.com>):
We're having a fit because this is sci.med.cardiology not
sci.med.christianity... get it? Of course not. Any more that the
pilot who will probably be fired "get's it". All we have to do is
figure out a way to fire you.
Humbly,
Steve, Humilitas Doctorus, Fellow of the American Academy of Humility
Weeding the Lord's Vineyards Since 2003
list...@nospam.net
<and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
>Spiritual matters aren't funny.
>
>Servant to the humblest person in the universe,
>
>Andrew
LOL!
Carol T
> We're having a fit because this is sci.med.cardiology not
> sci.med.christianity... get it?
But Steven, what of 'your' heart problem, it's causing problems with your soul.
Carol T
Carol T
> I still like my version of this where I posted, "Serpent to the
> humblest person in the universe." But only Chung would so trivialize
> his "buddy" J. Christ.
Dear Bob,
Look to your side and ask for forgiveness.
"And they that were vexed with unclean spirits: and they were healed." Luke 6:18
Carol T
Carol T
> Carol T wrote:
> Though Don is likely to find everything that you have written to be off putting...<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Maybe today, but he loves The Lord.
Will the Lord not give wisdom to those who claim it in His name
because they love Him, when their ears have their ear to hear?
He is a fitting neighbour for any man to love.
Carol T
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
All neighbors are fit to be loved, Carol :-)
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?
Carol T
> > Will the Lord not give wisdom to those who claim it in His name
> > because they love Him, when their ears have their ear to hear?
> >
> > He is a fitting neighbour for any man to love.
> >
> > Carol T
>
> All neighbors are fit to be loved, Carol :-)
Yes, they are.
Carol T
Stephen Nagler
Chung, MD/PhD) wrote:
>All neighbors are fit to be loved, Carol :-)
................
Yea, Dr. Chung. Right. You loved me so much that you called the Cobb
County Police and falsely accused me of harassing you and stalking
you. Let's see - there was the call to your office where I asked your
receptionist if you were on staff at St. Joseph's Hospital or any
other Atlanta area hospitals. She said that she didn't know. I
thanked her and hung up the phone. Took fifteen seconds. Maybe
twenty. THAT was the telephone harassment you accused me of. And
then there was the e-mail harassment. You remember, don't you? The
three e-mails I sent? Two in which I invited you to lunch so that we
could discuss our differences ... and one in which I told you I felt
no ill will towards you and asked that we make an effort not to be
hurtful to one another.
And you filed a police report.
That's how you demonstrate love for your neighbor? You don't respond
to his lunch invitations and instead file a false police report?
To quote you: "You poor guy."
Can't tell what I feel more right now - hatred, disgust, or pity. Let
me get back to you on that one.
smn
Tiger Lily
disgust covers it
"Stephen Nagler" <> wrote in message @4ax.com...
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> sounds like typical Chung
>
> disgust covers it
Like Dr. Nagler, you too are unaware of your obsessions.
You poor tortured soul.
You remain in my prayers, neighbor.
Carol T
> Can't tell what I feel more right now - hatred, disgust, or pity. Let
> me get back to you on that one.<<<<<<<<<<<
What would God want from us, perhaps to know that no man can stand
greater than another? That all men have iniquities deserving of our
forgiveness and the forgiveness is for ourselves so that we can rise
above others, as God is over us.
"If You, Lord, should mark iniquities, O Lord, who could stand? But
there is forgiveness with You, That You may be feared. " Psalms 130
3-4
Do we stand as forgiven in our iniquities?
Carol T
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Thankfully, we do through the blood of Christ.
Stephen Nagler
>Do we stand as forgiven in our iniquities?
...............
You must be kidding. That bastard filed a false police report. I
will not forgive him. And if he thinks that the Lord will forgive him
merely because he pays lip service to Jesus, well that's just yet
another of his many delusions.
smn
Bob
> Tiger Lily wrote:
>
>>sounds like typical Chung
>>
>>disgust covers it
>
> Like Dr. Nagler, you too are unaware of your obsessions.
Bwahahahaha
<wipes tears of mirth from eyes>
Irony thy name is Chung.
Bob
Home, Home On The Mu_n
wrote:
>You must be kidding. That bastard filed a false police report. I
>will not forgive him. And if he thinks that the Lord will forgive him
>merely because he pays lip service to Jesus, well that's just yet
>another of his many delusions.
As Christless Jew, your opinions on Jesus are worthless.
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap960222.html
Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long.
Home, Home On The Mu_n
>
>>All neighbors are fit to be loved, Carol :-)
>
>................
On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 02:01:20 GMT, Stephen Nagler <nag...@tinn.com>
wrote:
>Yea, Dr. Chung. Right. You loved me so much that you called the Cobb
>County Police and falsely accused me of harassing you and stalking
>you.
Appears to me that is exactly what you are doing, Nagler,
cyberstalking Chung on a cardiology newsgroup...again.
> And
>then there was the e-mail harassment. You remember, don't you? The
>three e-mails I sent?
Only takes one to be illegal, Nagler.
>And you filed a police report.
I guess lunch is off the table then, eh?
lol
Bob
>>>All neighbors are fit to be loved, Carol :-)
>>
>>................
>
> On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 02:01:20 GMT, Stephen Nagler <nag...@tinn.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Yea, Dr. Chung. Right. You loved me so much that you called the Cobb
>>County Police and falsely accused me of harassing you and stalking
>>you.
>
> Appears to me that is exactly what you are doing, Nagler,
> cyberstalking Chung on a cardiology newsgroup...again.
Typical Mu and Chung diversions. Accusing others of what they do.
Here's a definition of cyberstalking that certainly seems to be right
on the mark. Note how many messages in multiple newsgroups directed at
Stephen have been posted today by the cyberstalker Mu.
"Cyberstalking is a crime in which the attacker harasses a victim
using electronic communication, such as e-mail or instant messaging
(IM), or messages posted to a Web site or a discussion group. A
cyberstalker relies upon the anonymity afforded by the Internet to
allow them to stalk their victim without being detected. Cyberstalking
messages differ from ordinary spam in that a cyberstalker targets a
specific victim with often threatening messages, while the spammer
targets a multitude of recipients with simply annoying messages."
<http://searchsecurity.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,,sid14_gci865159,00.html>
Note that "anonymity" part.
Google "cyberstalking definition" and get nearly 2000 references.
>> And
>>then there was the e-mail harassment. You remember, don't you? The
>>three e-mails I sent?
>
> Only takes one to be illegal, Nagler.
Actually, not. Harassment is *sustained* rather than a single effort.
But who would have expected either knowledge or honesty from Mu?
Let's see what a real definition includes:
"What constitutes harassment?
<http://writing.fsu.edu/oow/2001/title_page.htm>
To simply define what is and what is not harassment can be quite a
difficult task. The legal definition of harassment according to
Black's Law Dictionary is:
"A course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes
substantial emotional distress in such person and serves no legitimate
purpose" or "words, gestures, and actions which tend to annoy, alarm
and abuse (verbally) another person."(Working to Halt Online Abuse)
Since this is seemingly a vague definition, some examples might clear
up any confusion.
Beware, some of these cases might surprise you!
Cases that DO NOT constitute harassment:
* Someone who simply disagrees with you, however strongly or unpleasantly.
* Someone who sends you a single e-mail that is not blatantly threatening.
* Spam, even though it is very annoying.
* Messages posted to any open arena, such as newsgroups, message
boards, or forums or chat rooms, unless they are forged to appear to
have come from you or contain direct threats or libelous statements.
* Information posted on a website.
Cases that DO constitute harassment:
* Repeated communication via e-mail or an instant messaging program
after the harasser has been clearly told to stop.
For a good overall view of what cyberstalking actually is, check out
<http://www.wiredsafety.org/divisions/cyberstalking.html>
>>And you filed a police report.
>
> I guess lunch is off the table then, eh?
>
> lol
Sick, sick man.
Bob
Carol T
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
> will not forgive him. And if he thinks that the Lord will forgive him
> merely because he pays lip service to Jesus, well that's just yet
> another of his many delusions.<<<<<<<<<
Is this God's way for you and your children Stephen?
When Joseph's brothers confronted him for forgiveness, they were in
fear of him too. He told them not to fear him and asked whether he was
in place of God. Joseph knew of God's ways and left forgiveness
between them and the Lord, as it wasn't his place.
Joseph had suffered terrible things because of his brothers
iniquities. Yet why did he do such a great thing for them? Through
their sin they had been prepared to sacrifice him, and through this
sacrifice they were later to learn the meaning of true forgiveness in
God's way.
Joseph knew if they feared the Lord as he did, then they would then
ask the Lord Himself for forgiveness. If they sought forgiveness from
God and were unforgiving then they would be condemned to live a life
of living hell. So Joseph would have known if they had been truly
forgiven by the way they lived after that day. Nothing more even
needed to be said.
Joseph lived long enough to know that God's forgiveness and the Word
lived on in the third generation of his brother's children. So
powerful is that Word that it is the pride of millions of Jewish
people even today. Joseph believed that through God's ways the 'life
of a great nation has been preserved'.
"Thus you shall say to Joseph: "I beg you, please forgive the trespass
of your brothers and their sin; for they did evil to you." ' Now,
please, forgive the trespass of the servants of the God of your
father." And Joseph wept when they spoke to him. Then his brothers
also went and fell down before his face, and they said, "Behold, we
are your servants. Joseph said to them, "Do not be afraid, for am I in
the place of God? But as for you, you meant evil against me; but God
meant it for good, in order to bring it about as it is this day, to
save many people alive. Now therefore, do not be afraid; I will
provide for you and your little ones." And he comforted them and spoke
kindly to them. So Joseph dwelt in Egypt, he and his father's
household. And Joseph lived one hundred and ten years. Joseph saw
Ephraim's children to the third generation. The children of Machir,
the son of Manasseh, were also brought up on Joseph's knees." Genesis
50-17:23
The story of Joseph is a beautiful inheritance, full of wisdom, grace
and the true meaning of forgiveness through sacrifice. Your
inheritance is there to give you and your family the peace that it
gave Joseph.
Like Joseph, Jesus taught people God's ways were not man's ways. With
men's ways Josephs brothers would have perished for their despicable
crimes against him, instead they went on to sow mighty seeds of faith.
What great crime has been done to you that can't be forgiven if you
are still here to teach the ways of God?
Carol T
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Without Christ, none of our sins can be forgiven.
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/?J31722867
Is this spam?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?N69721867
William Nunn
"Home, Home On The Mu_n" <homemo...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:gm1v2015argqcpd18...@4ax.com...
His compassion is not independently verifiable. I know his tomb is in India
though. True. He was a prophet of god just like the Shakyamuni Buddha was a
prophet of all the deities.
Carol T
> His compassion is not independently verifiable. I know his tomb is in India
> though. True. He was a prophet of god just like the Shakyamuni Buddha was a
> prophet of all the deities.<<<<<<<<
I am so sorry my friend bit you should not make him into someone he is
not and was not. He left his wife and new born child at a time when it
would have condemned his wife to a miserable existence and his child
to a possible life of utter poverty.
He did not carry his burden as a disciple of God, He didn't know God.
I am not saying that he didn't want to know God either, just that he
found a way of suppressing His need to address issues in his life, and
a need for God.
If an elder teaches that self hypnosis or meditation is way to
suppress the inner need for forgiveness, then the act of doing so
cannot be good for the whole community.
The Buddha couldn't forgive other people's sins because he didn't have
the authority to do so, and he wouldn't have been able to help those
who simply couldn't understand how to suppress inner needs because
they were children, or adults with a low IQ, the mentally disabled or
simply those whose needs were so great that no one but God could ever
help.
This is not a criticism of the Buddha himself, but an acknowledgment
of his needs as a man, and that he was simply a man. Only people who
would think of him 'as a God' would not have seen his own terrible
suffering. _His_ own needs are what drove him to search for Himself,
not the needs of other people, or for prophacy.
Carol T
Mozz
>He left his wife and new born child at a time when it
>would have condemned his wife to a miserable existence and his child
>to a possible life of utter poverty.
This is innacurate. When Siddhartha chose to seek the path leading to
the cessation of suffering his wife and child remained in the palace,
where they were well looked after by the king.
>He did not carry his burden as a disciple of God, He didn't know God.
>I am not saying that he didn't want to know God either, just that he
>found a way of suppressing His need to address issues in his life, and
>a need for God.
This is another innacurate assessment. Siddhartha did not accept there
was any need to conjure the idea of a Creator God.
> If an elder teaches that self hypnosis or meditation is way to
>suppress the inner need for forgiveness, then the act of doing so
>cannot be good for the whole community.
Self hypnosis is not the same thing as correctly practiced buddhist
meditation. Infact it is quite the reverse - it is clarity and
awakening.
However, perhaps you mean 'self delusion' suppresses the inner need
for forgiveness...Buddha taught such delusions are obstructions to
truth and liberation from suffering. A belief in a Creator God and any
theology surrounding such beliefs would be such an obstruction.
>The Buddha couldn't forgive other people's sins because he didn't have
>the authority to do so,
Sin means 'seperation from God' and as Buddha did not accept the need
to conjure such an idea as a Creator God, sin has no meaning here.
>and he wouldn't have been able to help those
>who simply couldn't understand how to suppress inner needs because
>they were children, or adults with a low IQ, the mentally disabled or
>simply those whose needs were so great that no one but God could ever
>help.
Buddhism does not teach the suppression of inner needs. It teaches
liberation from suffering through a practice of equanimity.
>This is not a criticism of the Buddha himself, but an acknowledgment
>of his needs as a man, and that he was simply a man. Only people who
>would think of him 'as a God' would not have seen his own terrible
>suffering. _His_ own needs are what drove him to search for Himself,
>not the needs of other people, or for prophacy.
Untrue. Siddhartha was struck most profoundly by the suffering he
witnessed of others, the elderly, the sick and the dead. Compassion
welled up in him and it was this that propelled him towards the path
of liberation for all beings.
Respectfully,
Mozz
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> >He left his wife and new born child at a time when it
> >would have condemned his wife to a miserable existence and his child
> >to a possible life of utter poverty.
>
> This is innacurate. When Siddhartha chose to seek the path leading to
> the cessation of suffering his wife and child remained in the palace,
> where they were well looked after by the king.
>
I found this seemingly thorough account of Siddhartha's life.
http://www.wsu.edu:8000/~dee/BUDDHISM/SIDD.HTM
There is no mention of his wife and child being well looked after.
Servant to the humblest person in the universe,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/
**
Who is the humblest person in the universe?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?W1F522557
What is all this about?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?G1BB12C67
Is this spam?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?N69721867
P.S. Welcome back, Mozz :-) You have been in my prayers, neighbor.
William Nunn
"Carol T" <cteas...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9bff2a56.0402...@posting.google.com...
I dno't know Carol really, but reading the story he wanted more depth to his
life OUTSIDE the palace. He viewed the suffering and the sick, and none of
it made sense at all, at the time. He then contemplated finding a way out to
all this which lead to meditation, emptying the mind of all the crap. Which
I need to do more!
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
The wages of sin are suffering and death.
> He then contemplated finding a way out to
> all this which lead to meditation, emptying the mind of all the crap.
If he found a way out, he would still be alive.
> Which
> I need to do more!
Learn from the One who has risen and beaten death.
Servant to the humblest person in the universe,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/
**
Who is the humblest person in the universe?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?W1F522557
What is all this about?
Carol T
> I dno't know Carol really, but reading the story he wanted more depth to his
> life OUTSIDE the palace. <<<<<<<<<<
He went in search of _himself_, not to help others. Pulling others
into the guilt of leaving a new baby and deserting a wife when being
left would have carried a terrible social stigma would have been to
have made 'himself' feel better.
He used other people to suppress _his_ own need for forgiveness.
People often do this when they have left someone and feel guilty. You
only need to sit in a social place and hear people draw others into
their justifications to understand this. It's something any good
psychologist/philosopher/minister would be aware of too.
As an educated man he would have mesmerised the people he didn't
normally mix with, and he almost certainly manipulated his education
to give himself power. His philosophies are simply drawn on a
collection of common proverbs, all of which are in the Bible. Any
educated person today can read the Proverbs.
Keeping people away from their true Lord is a sin against them, their
families and their children's children. Providing people with an image
of himself to worship is another sin. Imagery may provide one with a
love and the other with a repulsion, setting them up for failure and
emptiness; this is not God's way.
Jesus taught that God's way is for the growth of children in His love,
that they would grow up knowing Him and that He is there for them even
when they are alone, standing by their families and using their God
given wisdom to fertilise their seed.
Carol T
William Nunn
I severely disagree. You seem bigoted and attack Buddism. Gautama Buddha was
a wonderful man. After all he discovered enlightenment through meditation. I
have not attacked christianity. Come back to debate when you don't act like
a troll. You believe what you do, however if you impose it through force
then you will collectively destroy the world.
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
As is your right.
> You seem bigoted and attack Buddism. Gautama Buddha was
> a wonderful man. After all he discovered enlightenment through meditation.
Carol's point is well taken concerning the perspective of Siddhartha's family.
> I
> have not attacked christianity.
Seems you are taking Carol's comments about Siddhartha's behavior rather personally.
> Come back to debate when you don't act like
> a troll.
Will this ad hominem convince anyone that you are enlightened?
> You believe what you do, however if you impose it through force
> then you will collectively destroy the world.
It is unlikely that the fate of buddhism is tied with the fate of the world.
Servant to the humblest person in the universe,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/
**
Who is the humblest person in the universe?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?W1F522557
What is all this about?
Richard Lucarno
^"William Nunn" <nopenope> wrote in message news:<403512e3$0$9754$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com>...
^
^
^> I dno't know Carol really, but reading the story he wanted more depth to his
^> life OUTSIDE the palace. <<<<<<<<<<
^
^
^He went in search of _himself_, not to help others. Pulling others
^into the guilt of leaving a new baby and deserting a wife when being
^left would have carried a terrible social stigma would have been to
^have made 'himself' feel better.
You said this before, and it's just as wrong as it was without the
repetition. Whatever he may have felt upon leaving them, his children
(and thus the king's grandchildren) were heirs to the throne, and
would have been treated as such. Also, where you get this nonsense
about their being a stigma upon the wife and child because HE left is
beyond me.
^
^He used other people to suppress _his_ own need for forgiveness.
Perhaps after having nearly starved himself to death, he worked past
his need for forgiveness, having already punished himself.
^People often do this when they have left someone and feel guilty. You
^only need to sit in a social place and hear people draw others into
^their justifications to understand this. It's something any good
^psychologist/philosopher/minister would be aware of too.
^
^ As an educated man he would have mesmerised the people he didn't
^normally mix with, and he almost certainly manipulated his education
^to give himself power. His philosophies are simply drawn on a
^collection of common proverbs, all of which are in the Bible. Any
^educated person today can read the Proverbs.
And you studied Buddhism to learn this, or did your minister tell you?
^
^ Keeping people away from their true Lord is a sin against them, their
^families and their children's children.
Jesus hadn't even been conceived (immaculately or normally) when
Siddartha lived, so you are talking crap. Is everyone who was born
before Jesus' time damned to hell? How about those who had never even
heard his name in their lifetime? It was Paul (ne Saul) who made Jesus
famous throughout the west, not Jesus himself.
^ Providing people with an image
^of himself to worship is another sin. Imagery may provide one with a
^love and the other with a repulsion, setting them up for failure and
^emptiness; this is not God's way.
Garbage, and a display of incredible ignorance, because Buddha did no
such thing, and, like any knowledgeable Hindu of the time, could have
told you that the images and symbols of the supernatural were the
final barrier to understanding. Buddha provided no images of himself
for people to worship -- his followers did that after he died. The
images, to most Buddhists, would be considered not merely worship
objects, but something to get past on the way to enlightenment. This
is not done by smashing idols, since those that smash idols are as
captivated by them as those who venerate them. This was brought home
to me when I saw a newly "saved" Christian and his Christian friends
destroy a set of tapes that a Hindu teacher had once given him, which
he had come to believe were works of the devil. They did a lttle dance
over some newspapers that his brother's dog had been "training" on,
smashing the tapes underfoot. It was one of the most disgusting
displays of religious depravity I've ever seen. Do you think Jesus
gave them points for that?
Did you get your concept of Buddhism from hanging around Chinese curio
shops, or something?
^Jesus taught that God's way is for the growth of children in His love,
^that they would grow up knowing Him and that He is there for them even
^when they are alone, standing by their families and using their God
^given wisdom to fertilise their seed.
Then why did Jesus tell his disciples to leave their native villages,
and give up all their worldly goods, thus depriving their families of
sustenance, and follow him? What guilts were they carrying when they
claimed to see Jesus rise from the dead?
^
^Carol T
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> On 20 Feb 2004 10:38:11 -0800, cteas...@hotmail.com (Carol T) wrote:
>
> ^"William Nunn" <nopenope> wrote in message news:<403512e3$0$9754$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com>...
> ^
> ^
> ^> I dno't know Carol really, but reading the story he wanted more depth to his
> ^> life OUTSIDE the palace. <<<<<<<<<<
> ^
> ^
> ^He went in search of _himself_, not to help others. Pulling others
> ^into the guilt of leaving a new baby and deserting a wife when being
> ^left would have carried a terrible social stigma would have been to
> ^have made 'himself' feel better.
>
> You said this before, and it's just as wrong as it was without the
> repetition.
How do you know it is wrong?
> Whatever he may have felt upon leaving them, his children
> (and thus the king's grandchildren) were heirs to the throne, and
> would have been treated as such. Also, where you get this nonsense
> about their being a stigma upon the wife and child because HE left is
> beyond me.
>
Wife and child abandonment is stigmatizing.
>
> ^
> ^He used other people to suppress _his_ own need for forgiveness.
>
> Perhaps after having nearly starved himself to death, he worked past
> his need for forgiveness, having already punished himself.
>
Self-punishment does not fulfill the need for forgiveness.
>
> ^People often do this when they have left someone and feel guilty. You
> ^only need to sit in a social place and hear people draw others into
> ^their justifications to understand this. It's something any good
> ^psychologist/philosopher/minister would be aware of too.
> ^
> ^ As an educated man he would have mesmerised the people he didn't
> ^normally mix with, and he almost certainly manipulated his education
> ^to give himself power. His philosophies are simply drawn on a
> ^collection of common proverbs, all of which are in the Bible. Any
> ^educated person today can read the Proverbs.
>
> And you studied Buddhism to learn this, or did your minister tell you?
>
Sounds like she has read the Proverbs.
>
> ^
> ^ Keeping people away from their true Lord is a sin against them, their
> ^families and their children's children.
>
> Jesus hadn't even been conceived (immaculately or normally) when
> Siddartha lived, so you are talking crap.
Here Carol would be referring to Lord God the Father rather than the Son.
> Is everyone who was born
> before Jesus' time damned to hell?
No.
> How about those who had never even
> heard his name in their lifetime?
Yes, for those who lived after Christ's resurrection.
> It was Paul (ne Saul) who made Jesus
> famous throughout the west, not Jesus himself.
>
Without Jesus' teachings, crucifixion, and resurrection, there would have been no Good News for Paul
to preach.
>
> ^ Providing people with an image
> ^of himself to worship is another sin. Imagery may provide one with a
> ^love and the other with a repulsion, setting them up for failure and
> ^emptiness; this is not God's way.
>
> Garbage, and a display of incredible ignorance, because Buddha did no
> such thing, and, like any knowledgeable Hindu of the time, could have
> told you that the images and symbols of the supernatural were the
> final barrier to understanding. Buddha provided no images of himself
> for people to worship -- his followers did that after he died. The
> images, to most Buddhists, would be considered not merely worship
> objects, but something to get past on the way to enlightenment. This
> is not done by smashing idols, since those that smash idols are as
> captivated by them as those who venerate them. This was brought home
> to me when I saw a newly "saved" Christian and his Christian friends
> destroy a set of tapes that a Hindu teacher had once given him, which
> he had come to believe were works of the devil. They did a lttle dance
> over some newspapers that his brother's dog had been "training" on,
> smashing the tapes underfoot. It was one of the most disgusting
> displays of religious depravity I've ever seen. Do you think Jesus
> gave them points for that?
No.
>
> Did you get your concept of Buddhism from hanging around Chinese curio
> shops, or something?
>
I doubt that Carol hangs around Chinese curio shops.
>
> ^Jesus taught that God's way is for the growth of children in His love,
> ^that they would grow up knowing Him and that He is there for them even
> ^when they are alone, standing by their families and using their God
> ^given wisdom to fertilise their seed.
>
> Then why did Jesus tell his disciples to leave their native villages,
> and give up all their worldly goods, thus depriving their families of
> sustenance, and follow him?
Jesus is God the Son. He provided and continues to provide for His disciples.
> What guilts were they carrying when they
> claimed to see Jesus rise from the dead?
There is no guilt in the truth.
Servant to the humblest person in the universe,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/
**
Who is the humblest person in the universe?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?W1F522557
What is all this about?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?G5EF42A77
Carol T
>>>>>>>>>>>>>.. Also, where you get this nonsense
> about their being a stigma upon the wife and child because HE left is
> beyond me.<<<<<<<<<<<
It wasn't this centaury, it was a time when women held a very low
social status.
> Perhaps after having nearly starved himself to death, he worked past
> his need for forgiveness, having already punished himself.<<<<<<<<<,
You cannot work past it, he found a way to suppress it and pulled
others into it. Any educated individual who put themselves amongst the
uneducated in that day would have had an enormous power over others,
especially if they appeared to have been helping them. Having walked
out of one palace he needed another court to govern, his other option
was to go back to what had driven him out. Without personal power an
educated man would not have been able to live amongst those who were
living in abject poverty as he was in a different world to that he'd
grown up in. Human nature is measurable regardless of the time
incidences take place. Any educated person cannot fail to improve the
lives of the miserably down trodden and uneducated and gain power over
others through it.
>>>>>>>> And you studied Buddhism to learn this, or did your minister
tell you?<<<<<<
I have studied plenty of psychology and theology. However, that is
irrelevant, he did not practice the ways of God.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so you are talking crap. Is everyone who was born
> before Jesus' time damned to hell? <<<<<<<<<
The law of sin was written long before Jesus and the Buddha were even
born. Read through the Old Testament to discover this, it's
interwoven in God's ways.
>>>>>>>>>>>>Buddha provided no images of himself
> for people to worship -- his followers did that after he died.<<<<<<<<<
He did it, he did it through being who he was, making himself their
idol and not giving all glory to God.
>>>>>>>>>>.They did a lttle dance
> over some newspapers that his brother's dog had been "training" on,
> smashing the tapes underfoot. It was one of the most disgusting
> displays of religious depravity I've ever seen. Do you think Jesus
> gave them points for that?<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I have no idea what you have seen or why it disgusted you.
Christianity is accepting Christ, who is one with God and the Holy
Spirit, as your personal saviour and then trying your best to live up
to His teachings. The devil has always been around, since the
beginning of time. Maybe they were showing their disgust that he'd
managed to get the better of them.
>>>>>>>>> Then why did Jesus tell his disciples to leave their native
villages,
> and give up all their worldly goods, thus depriving their families of
> sustenance, and follow him? What guilts were they carrying when they
> claimed to see Jesus rise from the dead?<<<<<<<<<<<
If they did this they did it for God, not a mortal man. Any guilt's
they carried were that of mortal men, just as the Buddha was. Through
Jesus' death on the cross He forgave them.
God's way is to have children follow Him, love Him, to know His law
and to grow up knowing that He is with them at all times. It's
arrogant of any adult, whoever they are, to teach the suppression of a
child's need for God in their lives.
Jesus also taught that to become a disciple of His then their love for
God must be so great that it is only comparable to hate of their own
family members. This was a powerful way of saying don't follow me
unless you understand that depth of love. He required His disciples to
understand and acknowledge the ways of His Father, that they could
freely make the choice and understand the impact of their decision on
others. Their children and wives would have experienced the true power
of God through love; such power will only have been held in reverence
and accepted by them as they had been taught. That is an awesome thing
and not comparable to what the Buddha did in any way shape of form.
Who do you think his wife and son revered having been left for his
search of _himself_?
"If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife
and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he
cannot be My disciple." Luke 14:26
Jesus can be with you now through the Holy Spirit, the Buddha cannot,
all he has left you is a way to suppress your own needs and to ignore
the needs of our children. The Buddha is not and was not God, he was
his own Lord in his own kingdom.
Carol T
Mozz
respectfully I must point out that you are mistaken regarding Indian
historical culture and especially Buddhism. I understand that you have
chosen to believe in a particular version of Christian theology.
Unfortunately though you are also exhibiting a damaging state of
imbalance and partiality when making pronouncements on other equally
valid and proven systems of belief.
>It wasn't this centaury, it was a time when women held a very low
>social status.
If you look at any academic cultural and social analyses of the Indian
sub-continent in the time of Siddhartha, you will be pleasently
surprised to find that it was one of the most civilised and highly
developed cultural regions in the world. Rivaling even Ancient Greece
in it's cultivation of civilisation. The levels of poverty were
nothing like witnessed in India today, infact western Europe and the
Middle East was by far the inferior in terms of living standards at
the time. Women were treated very liberally, and especially women of
noble rank. I can understand your confusion, if you are judging by
Middle Eastern standards of the time, where generally speaking women
were held in very low status - look to the Talmud to witness how women
were not allowed the same Temple access as men etc...The Indians were
somewhat more progressive.
>> Perhaps after having nearly starved himself to death, he worked past
>> his need for forgiveness, having already punished himself.<<<<<<<<<,
Forgiveness? To whom? To What? Please remember Siddhartha was not
labouring under any Judeo-Christian concepts of the Fall or Sin.
>You cannot work past it, he found a way to suppress it and pulled
>others into it.
Any good buddhist practitioner worth their salt would tell you that
'suppression' is unhealthy. Siddhartha found this by initially
practicing aecetic extremes. His wise discovery was the doctine of the
Middle Way - ie: do not 'force' or 'suppress' anything but find the
balance.
>Any educated individual who put themselves amongst the
>uneducated in that day would have had an enormous power over others,
>especially if they appeared to have been helping them. Having walked
>out of one palace he needed another court to govern, his other option
>was to go back to what had driven him out.
So many false assumptions about Siddhartha's personal psychology. As
someone who has studied psychology (as I have also) you should be much
more circumspect about rushing to judgement without the facts.
You assumptions about Indian historical culture are wrong once again.
It was the widespread tradition in those days, that wandering aesetics
- holy men - would be supported and honoured by the society as a
whole. They were viewed as heroic, regardless of position or
education. Infact, many were highly educated, and Siddhartha would not
have been seen as an exception in that regard.
>
>I have studied plenty of psychology and theology. However, that is
>irrelevant, he did not practice the ways of God.
If you studied Psychology or indeed the Psychology 'of' Theology you
would be able to seperate the subjective belief from the objective
facts. Practicing the ways of (a) God are a matter of faith, not fact.
>The law of sin was written long before Jesus and the Buddha were even
>born. Read through the Old Testament to discover this, it's
>interwoven in God's ways.
The natural law of karma was truth even before Abraham and the
prophets and centuries before Jesus of Nazareth was born. And it
continues to remain the truth. That is my belief as a buddhist, you
believe in the law of sin as a christian, and a communist believes in
the laws of socialism leading to economic equality for all. Go figure.
I accept that although I feel I am right in my beliefs, others may
feel otherwise - and that's ok.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>Buddha provided no images of himself
>> for people to worship -- his followers did that after he died.<<<<<<<<<
>
>
>He did it, he did it through being who he was, making himself their
>idol and not giving all glory to God.
He did not accept the need to conjure a belief in a Creator Deity.
Did not the Lord say to not make any graven images or idols of Himself
in the Talmud? Yet do I not see crucifixes in most churches or around
people's necks? Or the sign of the fish?
The point early theists were making - which is the same as that of the
buddha - was 'let go of attachment' - 'spirit is found not in things,
whether they be images, books or people'.
>I have no idea what you have seen or why it disgusted you.
>Christianity is accepting Christ, who is one with God and the Holy
>Spirit, as your personal saviour and then trying your best to live up
>to His teachings. The devil has always been around, since the
>beginning of time. Maybe they were showing their disgust that he'd
>managed to get the better of them.
Ah...let's conjure the devil - better known as the Archetypal
Judeo-Christian scape-goat... And a symbol of the death of the
intellect!
>Then why did Jesus tell his disciples to leave their native
>villages,
>> and give up all their worldly goods, thus depriving their families of
>> sustenance, and follow him? What guilts were they carrying when they
>> claimed to see Jesus rise from the dead?<<<<<<<<<<<
>
>
>If they did this they did it for God, not a mortal man.
So anything that appears to be 'for God' is ok? Killing? Murder? So
called 'just wars'??? Whatever excuse you conjure, the families left
really were deprived of their sustenance by the loss of their
breadwinners.
>Any guilt's
>they carried were that of mortal men, just as the Buddha was. Through
>Jesus' death on the cross He forgave them.
>God's way is to have children follow Him, love Him, to know His law
>and to grow up knowing that He is with them at all times. It's
>arrogant of any adult, whoever they are, to teach the suppression of a
>child's need for God in their lives.
It's arrogance to assume that just because one's 'belief' in God is
seems like absolute truth for one, that everyone else must follow or
be damned. It's called 'Fundamenalism' or 'intolerance' and it's the
death of the intellect - see Al Queda for an example of it in action.
>Jesus also taught that to become a disciple of His then their love for
>God must be so great that it is only comparable to hate of their own
>family members.
>unless you understand that depth of love. He required His disciples to
>understand and acknowledge the ways of His Father, that they could
>freely make the choice and understand the impact of their decision on
>others. Their children and wives would have experienced the true power
>of God through love; such power will only have been held in reverence
>and accepted by them as they had been taught. That is an awesome thing
>and not comparable to what the Buddha did in any way shape of form.
>Who do you think his wife and son revered having been left for his
>search of _himself_?
His wife and son later chose to become followers of buddha's Noble
Eightfold Path to liberation and it is said they both reached
Enlightenment before they died. Lord Buddha taught us all the way to
Enlightenment and Liberation from suffering. That is an awesome thing
and not comparable in the least to what you have portrayed as God's
mission. Although I accept that you may not be the most articulate and
persuasive supporter of Christian theology (of which I have studied
also and have great respect for).
>"If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife
>and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he
>cannot be My disciple." Luke 14:26
By the same spirit Siddhartha was right to leave his family also, his
quest was a righteous and noble quest for the Truth and he also found
it.
>Jesus can be with you now through the Holy Spirit, the Buddha cannot,
We all share buddha nature. Our buddha nature (holy spirit) can be
accessed by practice of meditation (prayer) and the cultivation of
wisdom and compassion.
>all he has left you is a way to suppress your own needs and to ignore
>the needs of our children. The Buddha is not and was not God, he was
>his own Lord in his own kingdom.
The buddha never claimed to be a God, neither did he believe in any
Gods. The buddha taught that no kingdom truly exists other than
Emptiness. All form is emptiness, all emptiness is form.
May the blessed bodhicitta spread throughout all realms of being and
bring all beings to enlightenment swiftly.
Respectfully,
Mozz
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Hello Carol - I have been following this debate with interest and
> respectfully I must point out that you are mistaken regarding Indian
> historical culture and especially Buddhism.
Hello Mozz -
You are welcome to cite references that support your dissenting view.
> I understand that you have
> chosen to believe in a particular version of Christian theology.
Carol has accepted Christ to be her personal Lord and Savior.
> Unfortunately though you are also exhibiting a damaging state of
> imbalance and partiality when making pronouncements on other equally
> valid and proven systems of belief.
Damaging for whom?
> >It wasn't this centaury, it was a time when women held a very low
> >social status.
>
> If you look at any academic cultural and social analyses of the Indian
> sub-continent in the time of Siddhartha, you will be pleasently
> surprised to find that it was one of the most civilised and highly
> developed cultural regions in the world. Rivaling even Ancient Greece
> in it's cultivation of civilisation. The levels of poverty were
> nothing like witnessed in India today, infact western Europe and the
> Middle East was by far the inferior in terms of living standards at
> the time. Women were treated very liberally, and especially women of
> noble rank. I can understand your confusion, if you are judging by
> Middle Eastern standards of the time, where generally speaking women
> were held in very low status - look to the Talmud to witness how women
> were not allowed the same Temple access as men etc...The Indians were
> somewhat more progressive.
Then you would agree that women held a lower social status then men?
> >> Perhaps after having nearly starved himself to death, he worked past
> >> his need for forgiveness, having already punished himself.<<<<<<<<<,
>
> Forgiveness? To whom? To What? Please remember Siddhartha was not
> labouring under any Judeo-Christian concepts of the Fall or Sin.
Did he not recognize suffering of others?
> >You cannot work past it, he found a way to suppress it and pulled
> >others into it.
>
> Any good buddhist practitioner worth their salt would tell you that
> 'suppression' is unhealthy. Siddhartha found this by initially
> practicing aecetic extremes. His wise discovery was the doctine of the
> Middle Way - ie: do not 'force' or 'suppress' anything but find the
> balance.
Did this help him overcome death?
> >Any educated individual who put themselves amongst the
> >uneducated in that day would have had an enormous power over others,
> >especially if they appeared to have been helping them. Having walked
> >out of one palace he needed another court to govern, his other option
> >was to go back to what had driven him out.
>
> So many false assumptions about Siddhartha's personal psychology. As
> someone who has studied psychology (as I have also) you should be much
> more circumspect about rushing to judgement without the facts.
Carol has not "judged" Siddhartha in her comments.
> You assumptions about Indian historical culture are wrong once again.
> It was the widespread tradition in those days, that wandering aesetics
> - holy men - would be supported and honoured by the society as a
> whole. They were viewed as heroic, regardless of position or
> education. Infact, many were highly educated, and Siddhartha would not
> have been seen as an exception in that regard.
The "holy men" probably could have attributed much of their influence
to their being highly educated as you have described them to be.
> >
> >I have studied plenty of psychology and theology. However, that is
> >irrelevant, he did not practice the ways of God.
>
> If you studied Psychology or indeed the Psychology 'of' Theology you
> would be able to seperate the subjective belief from the objective
> facts. Practicing the ways of (a) God are a matter of faith, not fact.
Walking with Christ is a matter of obedience more than either faith or
fact.
Even those who would oppose Christ, acknowledge Christ either in faith
or fact in their opposition.
> >The law of sin was written long before Jesus and the Buddha were even
> >born. Read through the Old Testament to discover this, it's
> >interwoven in God's ways.
>
> The natural law of karma was truth
Jesus remains the truth.
> even before Abraham and the
> prophets and centuries before Jesus of Nazareth was born.
Jesus existed at the time of the universe's creation.
> And it
> continues to remain the truth.
Respectfully, Mozz, it never was the truth.
> That is my belief as a buddhist,
Believing something does not make it the truth.
The truth is independent of its proponents.
> you
> believe in the law of sin as a christian,
A Christian believes in salvation through Christ.
> and a communist believes in
> the laws of socialism leading to economic equality for all. Go figure.
> I accept that although I feel I am right in my beliefs, others may
> feel otherwise - and that's ok.
A Christian *knows* that only through Christ, our Messiah and Savior,
can we be made unblemished and presentable to God in heaven to receive
eternal life in His Kingdom. A Christian also *knows* that there will
be folks who feel otherwise because it has been prophesied that those
whose names are not written in the Book of Life will be cast into the
lake of fire.
For it is written in Revelations 20:
15If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was
thrown into the lake of fire.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>Buddha provided no images of himself
> >> for people to worship -- his followers did that after he died.<<<<<<<<<
> >
> >
> >He did it, he did it through being who he was, making himself their
> >idol and not giving all glory to God.
>
> He did not accept the need to conjure a belief in a Creator Deity.
God conjured up Buddha. Not the other way around.
> Did not the Lord say to not make any graven images or idols of Himself
> in the Talmud? Yet do I not see crucifixes in most churches or around
> people's necks?
Is the crucifix a graven image of Christ?
> Or the sign of the fish?
Is the sign of the fish a graven image of Christ?
> The point early theists were making - which is the same as that of the
> buddha - was 'let go of attachment' - 'spirit is found not in things,
> whether they be images, books or people'.
God made this point.
> >I have no idea what you have seen or why it disgusted you.
> >Christianity is accepting Christ, who is one with God and the Holy
> >Spirit, as your personal saviour and then trying your best to live up
> >to His teachings. The devil has always been around, since the
> >beginning of time. Maybe they were showing their disgust that he'd
> >managed to get the better of them.
>
> Ah...let's conjure the devil - better known as the Archetypal
> Judeo-Christian scape-goat... And a symbol of the death of the
> intellect!
It is prophesied in Revelations 20:
7When the thousand years are over, Satan will be released from
his prison
8and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of
the
earth--Gog and Magog--to gather them for battle. In number they
are like
the sand on the seashore. 9They marched across the breadth of the
earth
and surrounded the camp of God's people, the city he loves. But
fire came
down from heaven and devoured them. 10And the devil, who deceived
them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast
and the
false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and
night for
ever and ever.
> >Then why did Jesus tell his disciples to leave their native
> >villages,
> >> and give up all their worldly goods, thus depriving their families of
> >> sustenance, and follow him? What guilts were they carrying when they
> >> claimed to see Jesus rise from the dead?<<<<<<<<<<<
> >
> >
> >If they did this they did it for God, not a mortal man.
>
> So anything that appears to be 'for God' is ok? Killing? Murder? So
> called 'just wars'??? Whatever excuse you conjure, the families left
> really were deprived of their sustenance by the loss of their
> breadwinners.
God will judge. Not you or I.
> >Any guilt's
> >they carried were that of mortal men, just as the Buddha was. Through
> >Jesus' death on the cross He forgave them.
>
> >God's way is to have children follow Him, love Him, to know His law
> >and to grow up knowing that He is with them at all times. It's
> >arrogant of any adult, whoever they are, to teach the suppression of a
> >child's need for God in their lives.
>
> It's arrogance to assume that just because one's 'belief' in God is
> seems like absolute truth for one, that everyone else must follow or
> be damned.
So it is prophesied.
> It's called 'Fundamenalism' or 'intolerance' and it's the
> death of the intellect - see Al Queda for an example of it in action.
So you judge God to be "intolerant" of disbelief?
> >Jesus also taught that to become a disciple of His then their love for
> >God must be so great that it is only comparable to hate of their own
> >family members.
> >unless you understand that depth of love. He required His disciples to
> >understand and acknowledge the ways of His Father, that they could
> >freely make the choice and understand the impact of their decision on
> >others. Their children and wives would have experienced the true power
> >of God through love; such power will only have been held in reverence
> >and accepted by them as they had been taught. That is an awesome thing
> >and not comparable to what the Buddha did in any way shape of form.
> >Who do you think his wife and son revered having been left for his
> >search of _himself_?
>
> His wife and son later chose to become followers of buddha's Noble
> Eightfold Path to liberation and it is said they both reached
> Enlightenment before they died. Lord Buddha taught us all the way to
> Enlightenment and Liberation from suffering.
Is it now your claim that Buddha is your lord/god?
> That is an awesome thing
> and not comparable in the least to what you have portrayed as God's
> mission. Although I accept that you may not be the most articulate and
> persuasive supporter of Christian theology (of which I have studied
> also and have great respect for).
(...and turned your back on, out of respect? )
> >"If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife
> >and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he
> >cannot be My disciple." Luke 14:26
>
> By the same spirit Siddhartha was right to leave his family also, his
> quest was a righteous and noble quest for the Truth and he also found
> it.
Glad to hear that you believe that Siddhartha found Christ (who is the
Truth).
> >Jesus can be with you now through the Holy Spirit, the Buddha cannot,
>
> We all share buddha nature. Our buddha nature (holy spirit) can be
> accessed by practice of meditation (prayer) and the cultivation of
> wisdom and compassion.
It sounds like you are confusing ideals with spirit.
> >all he has left you is a way to suppress your own needs and to ignore
> >the needs of our children. The Buddha is not and was not God, he was
> >his own Lord in his own kingdom.
>
> The buddha never claimed to be a God, neither did he believe in any
> Gods. The buddha taught that no kingdom truly exists other than
> Emptiness. All form is emptiness, all emptiness is form.
Then why do you call buddha "lord" ?
> May the blessed bodhicitta spread throughout all realms of being and
> bring all beings to enlightenment swiftly.
May you accept Christ as your personal Lord and Savior, someday, so
that you too may have eternal life and the happiness that resides only
in God's Kingdom.
For this wish, you remain in my prayers, neighbor Mozz.
Mozz
>Hello Mozz -
Hello Andrew, I hope you are well.
>
>You are welcome to cite references that support your dissenting view.
Sure, no problem Andrew. For specifics about Indian cultural status of
women at the time of Siddhartha I refer you to an excellent book by
Karen Armstrong called Buddha. It's meticulously researched and I
think you might enjoy it.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0753813408/qid=1077556410/sr=1-7/ref=sr_1_11_7/202-6458459-6302219
that's the Amazon link to it. Enjoy!
>> I understand that you have
>> chosen to believe in a particular version of Christian theology.
>
>Carol has accepted Christ to be her personal Lord and Savior.
I think it only polite and proper to allow Carol to speak her own
mind.
>> Unfortunately though you are also exhibiting a damaging state of
>> imbalance and partiality when making pronouncements on other equally
>> valid and proven systems of belief.
>
>Damaging for whom?
Damaging for a fair impartial and reasoned spirit of enquiry.
>> If you look at any academic cultural and social analyses of the Indian
>> sub-continent in the time of Siddhartha, you will be pleasently
>> surprised to find that it was one of the most civilised and highly
>> developed cultural regions in the world. Rivaling even Ancient Greece
>> in it's cultivation of civilisation. The levels of poverty were
>> nothing like witnessed in India today, infact western Europe and the
>> Middle East was by far the inferior in terms of living standards at
>> the time. Women were treated very liberally, and especially women of
>> noble rank. I can understand your confusion, if you are judging by
>> Middle Eastern standards of the time, where generally speaking women
>> were held in very low status - look to the Talmud to witness how women
>> were not allowed the same Temple access as men etc...The Indians were
>> somewhat more progressive.
>
>Then you would agree that women held a lower social status then men?
Relatively speaking, women were held in much higher esteem in India at
that time. Sidharttha's wife would not have been condemned by her
husband's taking leave. That was the main point of contention between
Carol and myself.
>> Forgiveness? To whom? To What? Please remember Siddhartha was not
>> labouring under any Judeo-Christian concepts of the Fall or Sin.
>
>Did he not recognize suffering of others?
The suffering Siddhartha recognised in all was root poisons of
Attachment, Delusion and Ignorance to the reality of Samsara.
>> >You cannot work past it, he found a way to suppress it and pulled
>> >others into it.
>>
>> Any good buddhist practitioner worth their salt would tell you that
>> 'suppression' is unhealthy. Siddhartha found this by initially
>> practicing aecetic extremes. His wise discovery was the doctine of the
>> Middle Way - ie: do not 'force' or 'suppress' anything but find the
>> balance.
>
>Did this help him overcome death?
There is in truth no death to overcome. All is Emptiness.
>> >Any educated individual who put themselves amongst the
>> >uneducated in that day would have had an enormous power over others,
>> >especially if they appeared to have been helping them. Having walked
>> >out of one palace he needed another court to govern, his other option
>> >was to go back to what had driven him out.
>>
>> So many false assumptions about Siddhartha's personal psychology. As
>> someone who has studied psychology (as I have also) you should be much
>> more circumspect about rushing to judgement without the facts.
>
>Carol has not "judged" Siddhartha in her comments.
She judged Siddhartha to have had an enormous power over others due to
his education (regardless of his spiritual qualities) and she has
judged that he required some kind of 'court to govern' despite no
evidence of this at all.
>> You assumptions about Indian historical culture are wrong once again.
>> It was the widespread tradition in those days, that wandering aesetics
>> - holy men - would be supported and honoured by the society as a
>> whole. They were viewed as heroic, regardless of position or
>> education. Infact, many were highly educated, and Siddhartha would not
>> have been seen as an exception in that regard.
>
>The "holy men" probably could have attributed much of their influence
>to their being highly educated as you have described them to be.
There were many 'educated' laymen in India at that time, yet they did
not influence people in the same way those with spiritual qualities
clearly did.
>> >
>> >I have studied plenty of psychology and theology. However, that is
>> >irrelevant, he did not practice the ways of God.
>>
>> If you studied Psychology or indeed the Psychology 'of' Theology you
>> would be able to seperate the subjective belief from the objective
>> facts. Practicing the ways of (a) God are a matter of faith, not fact.
>
>Walking with Christ is a matter of obedience more than either faith or
>fact.
You are obedient due to your belief that Christ is real.
>Even those who would oppose Christ, acknowledge Christ either in faith
>or fact in their opposition.
If one 'believed' in the reality of Christ's existence and one wished
to oppose Christ (Anti-Christ) then I agree one would need belief of
faith in such a being.
>> >The law of sin was written long before Jesus and the Buddha were even
>> >born. Read through the Old Testament to discover this, it's
>> >interwoven in God's ways.
>>
>> The natural law of karma was truth
>
>Jesus remains the truth.
>
>> even before Abraham and the
>> prophets and centuries before Jesus of Nazareth was born.
>
>Jesus existed at the time of the universe's creation.
>
>> And it
>> continues to remain the truth.
>
>Respectfully, Mozz, it never was the truth.
That is a matter of belief again. For my part I know karma is truth,
and you are wrong. For your part you 'know' Jesus is truth. Let's
agree to disagree.
>
>> That is my belief as a buddhist,
>
>Believing something does not make it the truth.
Good point Andrew, your belief in Christ does not 'really' make it
true.
>The truth is independent of its proponents.
>
>> you
>> believe in the law of sin as a christian,
>
>A Christian believes in salvation through Christ.
>
>> and a communist believes in
>> the laws of socialism leading to economic equality for all. Go figure.
>> I accept that although I feel I am right in my beliefs, others may
>> feel otherwise - and that's ok.
>
>A Christian *knows* that only through Christ, our Messiah and Savior,
>can we be made unblemished and presentable to God in heaven to receive
>eternal life in His Kingdom. A Christian also *knows* that there will
>be folks who feel otherwise because it has been prophesied that those
>whose names are not written in the Book of Life will be cast into the
>lake of fire.
>
>For it is written in Revelations 20:
>
>15If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was
>thrown into the lake of fire.
Another belief. You are choosing to believe what someone called John
wrote on the island of Patmos centuries after the historical Jesus
lived and died. That's ok, it's your choice to interpret these
writings however you wish. I think it is a highly symbolic gnostic
text that speaks in the code of the time to other gnostic Christians
about the state of the rule of Rome and the hope of it's future
demise. Many scholars and christian theologians agree with this 'less
literal' interpretation.
>God conjured up Buddha. Not the other way around.
God does not exist other than in your mind.
>> Did not the Lord say to not make any graven images or idols of Himself
>> in the Talmud? Yet do I not see crucifixes in most churches or around
>> people's necks?
>
>Is the crucifix a graven image of Christ?
What do you think the crucifix signifies?
>> Or the sign of the fish?
>
>Is the sign of the fish a graven image of Christ?
What does the fish signify?
>
>> The point early theists were making - which is the same as that of the
>> buddha - was 'let go of attachment' - 'spirit is found not in things,
>> whether they be images, books or people'.
>
>God made this point.
Then your God and Buddha are in agreement on that point.
Yes, once again John prophesise' about Rome and the fall of the
Empire. It's all over now. Rome has fallen.
>> So anything that appears to be 'for God' is ok? Killing? Murder? So
>> called 'just wars'??? Whatever excuse you conjure, the families left
>> really were deprived of their sustenance by the loss of their
>> breadwinners.
>
>God will judge. Not you or I.
There is no God to judge anything.
>> It's arrogance to assume that just because one's 'belief' in God is
>> seems like absolute truth for one, that everyone else must follow or
>> be damned.
>
>So it is prophesied.
So you have interpreted...which is not the same thing as truth at all.
>> It's called 'Fundamenalism' or 'intolerance' and it's the
>> death of the intellect - see Al Queda for an example of it in action.
>
>So you judge God to be "intolerant" of disbelief?
I do not believe in God. I see people who claim there is a God exhibit
horrendous intolerance to those who disbelieve. In psychology this is
witnessed by the so called 'zealous' who try so hard to convince
others of their beliefs they become quite agitated and angry when
others show resistance. This is because they unconsciously are really
doubting their beliefs and secretly wish to convince themselves.
>> His wife and son later chose to become followers of buddha's Noble
>> Eightfold Path to liberation and it is said they both reached
>> Enlightenment before they died. Lord Buddha taught us all the way to
>> Enlightenment and Liberation from suffering.
>
>Is it now your claim that Buddha is your lord/god?
I do not believe in God or Gods. Lord Buddha was a human being.
>> That is an awesome thing
>> and not comparable in the least to what you have portrayed as God's
>> mission. Although I accept that you may not be the most articulate and
>> persuasive supporter of Christian theology (of which I have studied
>> also and have great respect for).
>
>(...and turned your back on, out of respect?)
Is it respectful to stay in a religion that one does not accept as
true?
>> >"If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife
>> >and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he
>> >cannot be My disciple." Luke 14:26
>>
>> By the same spirit Siddhartha was right to leave his family also, his
>> quest was a righteous and noble quest for the Truth and he also found
>> it.
>
>Glad to hear that you believe that Siddhartha found Christ (who is the
>Truth).
I never said that Siddhartha found Christ - there is no Christ to
find. I said that Siddhartha found the truth to the path to the
cessation of suffering and enlightenment.
>> >Jesus can be with you now through the Holy Spirit, the Buddha cannot,
>>
>> We all share buddha nature. Our buddha nature (holy spirit) can be
>> accessed by practice of meditation (prayer) and the cultivation of
>> wisdom and compassion.
>
>It sounds like you are confusing ideals with spirit.
You are mistaken.
>> >all he has left you is a way to suppress your own needs and to ignore
>> >the needs of our children. The Buddha is not and was not God, he was
>> >his own Lord in his own kingdom.
>>
>> The buddha never claimed to be a God, neither did he believe in any
>> Gods. The buddha taught that no kingdom truly exists other than
>> Emptiness. All form is emptiness, all emptiness is form.
>
>Then why do you call buddha "lord" ?
It is a traditional term of respect.
>> May the blessed bodhicitta spread throughout all realms of being and
>> bring all beings to enlightenment swiftly.
>
>
>May you accept Christ as your personal Lord and Savior, someday, so
>that you too may have eternal life and the happiness that resides only
>in God's Kingdom.
There is no God. Your salvation lies within your own mind. Seek the
Noble Eightfold Path to the cessation of suffering.
>
>For this wish, you remain in my prayers, neighbor Mozz.
You remain in my prayers also Andrew.
>
>
>Servant to the humblest person in the universe,
>
>Andrew
Respectfully, Mozz.
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> >Hello Mozz -
>
> Hello Andrew, I hope you are well.
God keeps me well. I trust that He has done the same for you.
>
> >
> >You are welcome to cite references that support your dissenting view.
>
> Sure, no problem Andrew. For specifics about Indian cultural status of
> women at the time of Siddhartha I refer you to an excellent book by
> Karen Armstrong called Buddha. It's meticulously researched and I
> think you might enjoy it.
> http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0753813408/qid=1077556410/sr=1-7/ref=sr_1_11_7/202-6458459-6302219
> that's the Amazon link to it. Enjoy!
>
How about something on-line to facilitate this discussion?
>
> >> I understand that you have
> >> chosen to believe in a particular version of Christian theology.
> >
> >Carol has accepted Christ to be her personal Lord and Savior.
>
> I think it only polite and proper to allow Carol to speak her own
> mind.
>
I am not keeping her from doing so.
>
> >> Unfortunately though you are also exhibiting a damaging state of
> >> imbalance and partiality when making pronouncements on other equally
> >> valid and proven systems of belief.
> >
> >Damaging for whom?
>
> Damaging for a fair impartial and reasoned spirit of enquiry.
>
Why should we be concerned about this non-entity?
>
> >> If you look at any academic cultural and social analyses of the Indian
> >> sub-continent in the time of Siddhartha, you will be pleasently
> >> surprised to find that it was one of the most civilised and highly
> >> developed cultural regions in the world. Rivaling even Ancient Greece
> >> in it's cultivation of civilisation. The levels of poverty were
> >> nothing like witnessed in India today, infact western Europe and the
> >> Middle East was by far the inferior in terms of living standards at
> >> the time. Women were treated very liberally, and especially women of
> >> noble rank. I can understand your confusion, if you are judging by
> >> Middle Eastern standards of the time, where generally speaking women
> >> were held in very low status - look to the Talmud to witness how women
> >> were not allowed the same Temple access as men etc...The Indians were
> >> somewhat more progressive.
> >
> >Then you would agree that women held a lower social status then men?
>
> Relatively speaking, women were held in much higher esteem in India at
> that time. Sidharttha's wife would not have been condemned by her
> husband's taking leave.
I suspect this did not advance her social status but probably lowered it even if there was not outright
condemnation.
> That was the main point of contention between
> Carol and myself.
>
Carol did not write that outright condemnation occurred.
>
> >> Forgiveness? To whom? To What? Please remember Siddhartha was not
> >> labouring under any Judeo-Christian concepts of the Fall or Sin.
> >
> >Did he not recognize suffering of others?
>
> The suffering Siddhartha recognised in all was root poisons of
> Attachment, Delusion and Ignorance to the reality of Samsara.
>
Sin is poison.
>
> >> >You cannot work past it, he found a way to suppress it and pulled
> >> >others into it.
> >>
> >> Any good buddhist practitioner worth their salt would tell you that
> >> 'suppression' is unhealthy. Siddhartha found this by initially
> >> practicing aecetic extremes. His wise discovery was the doctine of the
> >> Middle Way - ie: do not 'force' or 'suppress' anything but find the
> >> balance.
> >
> >Did this help him overcome death?
>
> There is in truth no death to overcome. All is Emptiness.
>
Such is denial.
>
> >> >Any educated individual who put themselves amongst the
> >> >uneducated in that day would have had an enormous power over others,
> >> >especially if they appeared to have been helping them. Having walked
> >> >out of one palace he needed another court to govern, his other option
> >> >was to go back to what had driven him out.
> >>
> >> So many false assumptions about Siddhartha's personal psychology. As
> >> someone who has studied psychology (as I have also) you should be much
> >> more circumspect about rushing to judgement without the facts.
> >
> >Carol has not "judged" Siddhartha in her comments.
>
> She judged Siddhartha to have had an enormous power over others due to
> his education (regardless of his spiritual qualities)
This would not be judgment.
> and she has
> judged that he required some kind of 'court to govern' despite no
> evidence of this at all.
>
Ditto.
>
> >> You assumptions about Indian historical culture are wrong once again.
> >> It was the widespread tradition in those days, that wandering aesetics
> >> - holy men - would be supported and honoured by the society as a
> >> whole. They were viewed as heroic, regardless of position or
> >> education. Infact, many were highly educated, and Siddhartha would not
> >> have been seen as an exception in that regard.
> >
> >The "holy men" probably could have attributed much of their influence
> >to their being highly educated as you have described them to be.
>
> There were many 'educated' laymen in India at that time, yet they did
> not influence people in the same way those with spiritual qualities
> clearly did.
Those with "spiritual qualities" were probably more highly educated (after all, they devoted themselves to
lifelong study whereas laymen did not)
>
>
> >> >
> >> >I have studied plenty of psychology and theology. However, that is
> >> >irrelevant, he did not practice the ways of God.
> >>
> >> If you studied Psychology or indeed the Psychology 'of' Theology you
> >> would be able to seperate the subjective belief from the objective
> >> facts. Practicing the ways of (a) God are a matter of faith, not fact.
> >
> >Walking with Christ is a matter of obedience more than either faith or
> >fact.
>
> You are obedient due to your belief that Christ is real.
>
SM. believes that Christ is real.... do you see SM. walking with Christ?
>
> >Even those who would oppose Christ, acknowledge Christ either in faith
> >or fact in their opposition.
>
> If one 'believed' in the reality of Christ's existence and one wished
> to oppose Christ (Anti-Christ) then I agree one would need belief of
> faith in such a being.
>
Glad your eyes are open.
>
> >> >The law of sin was written long before Jesus and the Buddha were even
> >> >born. Read through the Old Testament to discover this, it's
> >> >interwoven in God's ways.
> >>
> >> The natural law of karma was truth
> >
> >Jesus remains the truth.
> >
> >> even before Abraham and the
> >> prophets and centuries before Jesus of Nazareth was born.
> >
> >Jesus existed at the time of the universe's creation.
> >
> >> And it
> >> continues to remain the truth.
> >
> >Respectfully, Mozz, it never was the truth.
>
> That is a matter of belief again. For my part I know karma is truth,
> and you are wrong. For your part you 'know' Jesus is truth. Let's
> agree to disagree.
You have free will.
>
> >
> >> That is my belief as a buddhist,
> >
> >Believing something does not make it the truth.
>
> Good point Andrew, your belief in Christ does not 'really' make it
> true.
>
Correct.
Think carefully about these verifiable facts:
(1) Jesus Christ existed as a man.
(2) Jesus Christ said as a man that He is the "Truth, the Way, and the Life" and the Son of God.
(3) His followers have testified that He is the Messiah to their deaths.
(4) Despite (3), here we are, far greater in number and in strength.
(5) All who have challenged these facts, here at SMC and elsewhere, have fallen.
These facts will stand irrespective of my belief that Christ is my personal Lord and Savior or your disbelief
of it.
>
> >The truth is independent of its proponents.
> >
> >> you
> >> believe in the law of sin as a christian,
> >
> >A Christian believes in salvation through Christ.
> >
> >> and a communist believes in
> >> the laws of socialism leading to economic equality for all. Go figure.
> >> I accept that although I feel I am right in my beliefs, others may
> >> feel otherwise - and that's ok.
> >
> >A Christian *knows* that only through Christ, our Messiah and Savior,
> >can we be made unblemished and presentable to God in heaven to receive
> >eternal life in His Kingdom. A Christian also *knows* that there will
> >be folks who feel otherwise because it has been prophesied that those
> >whose names are not written in the Book of Life will be cast into the
> >lake of fire.
> >
> >For it is written in Revelations 20:
> >
> >15If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was
> >thrown into the lake of fire.
>
> Another belief.
A prophecy.
> You are choosing to believe what someone called John
> wrote on the island of Patmos centuries after the historical Jesus
> lived and died.
I am simply quoting the prophesy.
> That's ok, it's your choice to interpret these
> writings however you wish. I think it is a highly symbolic gnostic
> text that speaks in the code of the time to other gnostic Christians
> about the state of the rule of Rome and the hope of it's future
> demise. Many scholars and christian theologians agree with this 'less
> literal' interpretation.
>
We shall see.
>
> >God conjured up Buddha. Not the other way around.
>
> God does not exist other than in your mind.
>
That would be your hope.
>
> >> Did not the Lord say to not make any graven images or idols of Himself
> >> in the Talmud? Yet do I not see crucifixes in most churches or around
> >> people's necks?
> >
> >Is the crucifix a graven image of Christ?
>
> What do you think the crucifix signifies?
>
It reminds us of God's sacrifice.
>
> >> Or the sign of the fish?
> >
> >Is the sign of the fish a graven image of Christ?
>
> What does the fish signify?
>
It allows Christians to recognize each other.
> >
> >> The point early theists were making - which is the same as that of the
> >> buddha - was 'let go of attachment' - 'spirit is found not in things,
> >> whether they be images, books or people'.
> >
> >God made this point.
>
> Then your God and Buddha are in agreement on that point.
>
No surprise... God made Buddha.
Rome did not tempt Christ with bread when He was hungry from a 40 day fast. Satan did.
>
> >> So anything that appears to be 'for God' is ok? Killing? Murder? So
> >> called 'just wars'??? Whatever excuse you conjure, the families left
> >> really were deprived of their sustenance by the loss of their
> >> breadwinners.
> >
> >God will judge. Not you or I.
>
> There is no God to judge anything.
>
That would be your hope.
>
> >> It's arrogance to assume that just because one's 'belief' in God is
> >> seems like absolute truth for one, that everyone else must follow or
> >> be damned.
> >
> >So it is prophesied.
>
> So you have interpreted...which is not the same thing as truth at all.
Christ is the truth.
>
>
> >> It's called 'Fundamenalism' or 'intolerance' and it's the
> >> death of the intellect - see Al Queda for an example of it in action.
> >
> >So you judge God to be "intolerant" of disbelief?
>
> I do not believe in God.
That is your choice. You have free will.
> I see people who claim there is a God exhibit
> horrendous intolerance to those who disbelieve.
That is their choice. They also have free will.
> In psychology this is
> witnessed by the so called 'zealous' who try so hard to convince
> others of their beliefs they become quite agitated and angry when
> others show resistance.
SM. and BP would be good case studies for you.
> This is because they unconsciously are really
> doubting their beliefs and secretly wish to convince themselves.
>
Is that how you would explain the fact that I am neither agitated nor angry with you?
(i.e. I am secure in my beliefs and have no need to convince either myself or you)
>
> >> His wife and son later chose to become followers of buddha's Noble
> >> Eightfold Path to liberation and it is said they both reached
> >> Enlightenment before they died. Lord Buddha taught us all the way to
> >> Enlightenment and Liberation from suffering.
> >
> >Is it now your claim that Buddha is your lord/god?
>
> I do not believe in God or Gods. Lord Buddha was a human being.
>
The why the title "Lord" ?
>
> >> That is an awesome thing
> >> and not comparable in the least to what you have portrayed as God's
> >> mission. Although I accept that you may not be the most articulate and
> >> persuasive supporter of Christian theology (of which I have studied
> >> also and have great respect for).
> >
> >(...and turned your back on, out of respect?)
>
> Is it respectful to stay in a religion that one does not accept as
> true?
>
Yes. Paying lip service to anyone or anything is a sign of respect especially when there is disagreement.
The servant that says "Yes, Sir" to his master when he is thinking "No, I don't want to do this" is being
respectful.
>
> >> >"If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife
> >> >and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he
> >> >cannot be My disciple." Luke 14:26
> >>
> >> By the same spirit Siddhartha was right to leave his family also, his
> >> quest was a righteous and noble quest for the Truth and he also found
> >> it.
> >
> >Glad to hear that you believe that Siddhartha found Christ (who is the
> >Truth).
>
> I never said that Siddhartha found Christ - there is no Christ to
> find. I said that Siddhartha found the truth to the path to the
> cessation of suffering and enlightenment.
>
The latter is Christ, neighbor.
>
> >> >Jesus can be with you now through the Holy Spirit, the Buddha cannot,
> >>
> >> We all share buddha nature. Our buddha nature (holy spirit) can be
> >> accessed by practice of meditation (prayer) and the cultivation of
> >> wisdom and compassion.
> >
> >It sounds like you are confusing ideals with spirit.
>
> You are mistaken.
>
Still seems that way to me.
>
> >> >all he has left you is a way to suppress your own needs and to ignore
> >> >the needs of our children. The Buddha is not and was not God, he was
> >> >his own Lord in his own kingdom.
> >>
> >> The buddha never claimed to be a God, neither did he believe in any
> >> Gods. The buddha taught that no kingdom truly exists other than
> >> Emptiness. All form is emptiness, all emptiness is form.
> >
> >Then why do you call buddha "lord" ?
>
> It is a traditional term of respect.
>
...and reverence. You call buddha "lord" and I call Jesus "Lord."
>
> >> May the blessed bodhicitta spread throughout all realms of being and
> >> bring all beings to enlightenment swiftly.
> >
> >
> >May you accept Christ as your personal Lord and Savior, someday, so
> >that you too may have eternal life and the happiness that resides only
> >in God's Kingdom.
>
> There is no God.
That would be your hope.
> Your salvation lies within your own mind.
Only if you were God, but you are not. It is written that Satan "sold" the idea of disobedience to Adam and
Eve with the lie that they would have God's power. One can't help but wonder if buddha bought into this idea.
> Seek the
> Noble Eightfold Path to the cessation of suffering.
>
Have you stopped suffering, Mozz?
> >
> >For this wish, you remain in my prayers, neighbor Mozz.
>
> You remain in my prayers also Andrew.
>
Who are you praying to, Mozz?
Servant to the humblest person in the universe,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/
**
Who is the humblest person in the universe?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?W1F522557
What is all this about?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?T13943F77
Bob (this one)
> Mozz wrote:
>
>>>>Unfortunately though you are also exhibiting a damaging state of
>>>>imbalance and partiality when making pronouncements on other equally
>>>>valid and proven systems of belief.
Chung wrote:
>>>Damaging for whom?
Mozz wrote
>>Damaging for a fair impartial and reasoned spirit of enquiry.
Chung wrote:
>>Why should we be concerned about this non-entity?
And there it is. "Non-entity," indeed. Never heard of the scientific
method, I guess.
Bob
Mozz
>> >You are welcome to cite references that support your dissenting view.
>>
>> Sure, no problem Andrew. For specifics about Indian cultural status of
>> women at the time of Siddhartha I refer you to an excellent book by
>> Karen Armstrong called Buddha. It's meticulously researched and I
>> think you might enjoy it.
>> http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0753813408/qid=1077556410/sr=1-7/ref=sr_1_11_7/202-6458459-6302219
>> that's the Amazon link to it. Enjoy!
>>
>
>How about something on-line to facilitate this discussion?
Most of my research is from good old fashioned books I'm sorry to say.
If I come across any relevant online work I'll flag it up for you
though.
>> >> Unfortunately though you are also exhibiting a damaging state of
>> >> imbalance and partiality when making pronouncements on other equally
>> >> valid and proven systems of belief.
>> >
>> >Damaging for whom?
>>
>> Damaging for a fair impartial and reasoned spirit of enquiry.
>>
>
>Why should we be concerned about this non-entity?
Surely you are not asking me why we should be concerned about
fairness, impartiality and reason?
>> Relatively speaking, women were held in much higher esteem in India at
>> that time. Sidharttha's wife would not have been condemned by her
>> husband's taking leave.
>
>I suspect this did not advance her social status but probably lowered it even if there was not outright
>condemnation.
Your suspicions are unfounded by the facts. In India at that time, it
was relatively common for husbands and fathers to choose to pursue the
spiritual path. Generally this was seen as a heroic and brave
endeavour taken by the individual for the benefit of all.
>> The suffering Siddhartha recognised in all was root poisons of
>> Attachment, Delusion and Ignorance to the reality of Samsara.
>>
>
>Sin is poison.
I understand that a widely held definition of sin is 'transgression
and thus seperation from God' - If so, the concept of sin itself
upholds a mistaken view of reality as a belief in a creator deity is a
delusion.
>> There is in truth no death to overcome. All is Emptiness.
>>
>
>Such is denial.
Denial is to choose to believe in the fantasy of a creator deity.
>Those with "spiritual qualities" were probably more highly educated (after all, they devoted themselves to
>lifelong study whereas laymen did not)
Another mistaken assumption. Most aescetics began to study in later
life. Also many laymen, artisans and tradesmen devoted themselves to
their particular paths, whether that be building, decoration or
medicine.
>SM. believes that Christ is real.... do you see SM. walking with Christ?
No one is walking with Christ, as in reality Christ does not exist
other than as a set of projections built on interpretations picked up
from the culture and environment around you over the years.
>> If one 'believed' in the reality of Christ's existence and one wished
>> to oppose Christ (Anti-Christ) then I agree one would need belief of
>> faith in such a being.
>>
>
>Glad your eyes are open.
They remain open.
>Think carefully about these verifiable facts:
ok.
>(1) Jesus Christ existed as a man.
I am prepared to accept that this was indeed likely.
>(2) Jesus Christ said as a man that He is the "Truth, the Way, and the Life" and the Son of God.
The most we can say with accuracy here is that we are implored to
accept that Jesus once said these things by the writers of the
gospels.
>(3) His followers have testified that He is the Messiah to their deaths.
This does not mean Jesus was in fact the messiah. It merely shows the
strength of belief held by his followers. In the very same way look to
the Palestinian suicide-bombers of today or the Islamic Jihad members,
or indeed the Al Queda operatives who also exhibit the same zeal in
the name of their god.
>(4) Despite (3), here we are, far greater in number and in strength.
For everything there is a season. Things change. Civilisations rise,
civilisations fall....
>(5) All who have challenged these facts, here at SMC and elsewhere, have fallen.
And yet I am still standing.
>These facts will stand irrespective of my belief that Christ is my personal Lord and Savior or your disbelief
>of it.
You have merely presented me with typical fundamentalist Christian
dogma, not verifiable facts.
>> >Is the crucifix a graven image of Christ?
>>
>> What do you think the crucifix signifies?
>It reminds us of God's sacrifice.
Ah, it fulfils the same function as the image of a Golden Calf once
reminded the Israelites of Mamon on the slopes of Mount Sinai?
>> >> The point early theists were making - which is the same as that of the
>> >> buddha - was 'let go of attachment' - 'spirit is found not in things,
>> >> whether they be images, books or people'.
>> >
>> >God made this point.
>>
>> Then your God and Buddha are in agreement on that point.
>No surprise... God made Buddha.
And yet your God also made athiests, muslims, jews, hindus, communists
etc etc....is it also no surprise their beliefs are not in accordance
with your God?
>> In psychology this is
>> witnessed by the so called 'zealous' who try so hard to convince
>> others of their beliefs they become quite agitated and angry when
>> others show resistance.
>
>SM. and BP would be good case studies for you.
>
>> This is because they unconsciously are really
>> doubting their beliefs and secretly wish to convince themselves.
>>
>
>Is that how you would explain the fact that I am neither agitated nor angry with you?
>(i.e. I am secure in my beliefs and have no need to convince either myself or you)
Interesting that you assume I refer to you.
And yet your posts betray you. You still strive to convince me that
you are right and I am wrong (all the while unconsciously trying to
reinforce your own beliefs - see your 5 points above)
>Yes. Paying lip service to anyone or anything is a sign of respect especially when there is disagreement.
>The servant that says "Yes, Sir" to his master when he is thinking "No, I don't want to do this" is being
>respectful.
This is nonsense. It is not respectful to say one thing and yet mean
another. It is quite the opposite.
>> I never said that Siddhartha found Christ - there is no Christ to
>> find. I said that Siddhartha found the truth to the path to the
>> cessation of suffering and enlightenment.
>>
>
>The latter is Christ, neighbor.
Did Christ teach the Four Noble Truths that lead to the practice of
the Eightfold Path to liberation, that lead to the perfection of
wisdom that leads to nirvana?
>> >Then why do you call buddha "lord" ?
>>
>> It is a traditional term of respect.
>...and reverence. You call buddha "lord" and I call Jesus "Lord."
I revere the teachings of Lord Buddha.
>> Your salvation lies within your own mind.
>
>Only if you were God, but you are not. It is written that Satan "sold" the idea of disobedience to Adam and
>Eve with the lie that they would have God's power. One can't help but wonder if buddha bought into this idea.
You cannot seriously be saying that you believe in the literal
existence of Adam and Eve?
>> Seek the
>> Noble Eightfold Path to the cessation of suffering.
>>
>
>Have you stopped suffering, Mozz?
I have.
>> >For this wish, you remain in my prayers, neighbor Mozz.
>>
>> You remain in my prayers also Andrew.
>>
>
>Who are you praying to, Mozz?
I pray to my buddha nature.
Respectfully,
Mozz
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Hello Andrew,
>
> >> >You are welcome to cite references that support your dissenting view.
> >>
> >> Sure, no problem Andrew. For specifics about Indian cultural status of
> >> women at the time of Siddhartha I refer you to an excellent book by
> >> Karen Armstrong called Buddha. It's meticulously researched and I
> >> think you might enjoy it.
> >> http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0753813408/qid=1077556410/sr=1-7/ref=sr_1_11_7/202-6458459-6302219
> >> that's the Amazon link to it. Enjoy!
> >>
> >
> >How about something on-line to facilitate this discussion?
>
> Most of my research is from good old fashioned books I'm sorry to say.
> If I come across any relevant online work I'll flag it up for you
> though.
>
I am surprised you have not returned better prepared.
>
> >> >> Unfortunately though you are also exhibiting a damaging state of
> >> >> imbalance and partiality when making pronouncements on other equally
> >> >> valid and proven systems of belief.
> >> >
> >> >Damaging for whom?
> >>
> >> Damaging for a fair impartial and reasoned spirit of enquiry.
> >>
> >
> >Why should we be concerned about this non-entity?
>
> Surely you are not asking me why we should be concerned about
> fairness, impartiality and reason?
>
These things will take care of themselves. They do not need either your protection or nurturing.
>
> >> Relatively speaking, women were held in much higher esteem in India at
> >> that time. Sidharttha's wife would not have been condemned by her
> >> husband's taking leave.
> >
> >I suspect this did not advance her social status but probably lowered it even if there was not outright
> >condemnation.
>
> Your suspicions are unfounded by the facts. In India at that time, it
> was relatively common for husbands and fathers to choose to pursue the
> spiritual path. Generally this was seen as a heroic and brave
> endeavour taken by the individual for the benefit of all.
>
Go ahead and cite something on-line that supports your assertion that and Indian woman advanced in social status if
her husband chose to pursue a spiritual path.
>
> >> The suffering Siddhartha recognised in all was root poisons of
> >> Attachment, Delusion and Ignorance to the reality of Samsara.
> >>
> >
> >Sin is poison.
>
> I understand that a widely held definition of sin is 'transgression
> and thus seperation from God' - If so, the concept of sin itself
> upholds a mistaken view of reality as a belief in a creator deity is a
> delusion.
>
Folks recognize sin even when they do not believe in God.
>
> >> There is in truth no death to overcome. All is Emptiness.
> >>
> >
> >Such is denial.
>
> Denial is to choose to believe in the fantasy of a creator deity.
>
Denial is to disbelieve rather than to believe.
>
> >Those with "spiritual qualities" were probably more highly educated (after all, they devoted themselves to
> >lifelong study whereas laymen did not)
>
> Another mistaken assumption. Most aescetics began to study in later
> life. Also many laymen, artisans and tradesmen devoted themselves to
> their particular paths, whether that be building, decoration or
> medicine.
Plying a trade is not the same as studying/thinking.
>
>
> >SM. believes that Christ is real.... do you see SM. walking with Christ?
>
> No one is walking with Christ,
Many are.
> as in reality Christ does not exist
According to buddha?
>
> other than as a set of projections built on interpretations picked up
> from the culture and environment around you over the years.
>
Have you learned this from buddha?
>
> >> If one 'believed' in the reality of Christ's existence and one wished
> >> to oppose Christ (Anti-Christ) then I agree one would need belief of
> >> faith in such a being.
> >>
> >
> >Glad your eyes are open.
>
> They remain open.
>
> >Think carefully about these verifiable facts:
>
> ok.
>
> >(1) Jesus Christ existed as a man.
>
> I am prepared to accept that this was indeed likely.
>
> >(2) Jesus Christ said as a man that He is the "Truth, the Way, and the Life" and the Son of God.
>
> The most we can say with accuracy here is that we are implored to
> accept that Jesus once said these things by the writers of the
> gospels.
>
It is so written in the Holy Bible. There are no evidence to support any assertions that He did not say what has
been attributed to Him in the Bible.
>
> >(3) His followers have testified that He is the Messiah to their deaths.
>
> This does not mean Jesus was in fact the messiah. It merely shows the
> strength of belief held by his followers. In the very same way look to
> the Palestinian suicide-bombers of today or the Islamic Jihad members,
> or indeed the Al Queda operatives who also exhibit the same zeal in
> the name of their god.
These folks are dead. We live.
>
>
> >(4) Despite (3), here we are, far greater in number and in strength.
>
> For everything there is a season. Things change. Civilisations rise,
> civilisations fall....
Christianity is not a civilization. There are followers of Christ in every nation on this planet.
>
>
> >(5) All who have challenged these facts, here at SMC and elsewhere, have fallen.
>
> And yet I am still standing.
>
You are treading water. Your raft has long been sunk.
>
> >These facts will stand irrespective of my belief that Christ is my personal Lord and Savior or your disbelief
> >of it.
>
> You have merely presented me with typical fundamentalist Christian
> dogma, not verifiable facts.
>
1-5 above are verifiable facts and not dogma.
>
> >> >Is the crucifix a graven image of Christ?
> >>
> >> What do you think the crucifix signifies?
>
> >It reminds us of God's sacrifice.
>
> Ah, it fulfils the same function as the image of a Golden Calf once
> reminded the Israelites of Mamon on the slopes of Mount Sinai?
>
No.
>
> >> >> The point early theists were making - which is the same as that of the
> >> >> buddha - was 'let go of attachment' - 'spirit is found not in things,
> >> >> whether they be images, books or people'.
> >> >
> >> >God made this point.
> >>
> >> Then your God and Buddha are in agreement on that point.
>
> >No surprise... God made Buddha.
>
> And yet your God also made athiests, muslims, jews, hindus, communists
> etc etc....is it also no surprise their beliefs are not in accordance
> with your God?
Yes. It is no surprise that they, like buddha, got lost.
God also gave them free will to choose the wayward path.
>
>
> >> In psychology this is
> >> witnessed by the so called 'zealous' who try so hard to convince
> >> others of their beliefs they become quite agitated and angry when
> >> others show resistance.
> >
> >SM. and BP would be good case studies for you.
> >
> >> This is because they unconsciously are really
> >> doubting their beliefs and secretly wish to convince themselves.
> >>
> >
> >Is that how you would explain the fact that I am neither agitated nor angry with you?
> >(i.e. I am secure in my beliefs and have no need to convince either myself or you)
>
> Interesting that you assume I refer to you.
>
I didn't.
>
> And yet your posts betray you.
My posts serve to glorify God.
> You still strive to convince me that
> you are right and I am wrong
Simply giving you information.
> (all the while unconsciously trying to
> reinforce your own beliefs - see your 5 points above)
>
If I were insecure in my beliefs, why am I not acting as you would expect for someone who is insecure is his/her
beliefs?
Where is the "agitation" and the "anger" ?
>
> >Yes. Paying lip service to anyone or anything is a sign of respect especially when there is disagreement.
> >The servant that says "Yes, Sir" to his master when he is thinking "No, I don't want to do this" is being
> >respectful.
>
> This is nonsense.
It is the truth.
> It is not respectful to say one thing and yet mean
> another.
In the relationship between a servant and his/her master, it is respectful for the servant to abide by the master's
wishes even if there is disagreement.
> It is quite the opposite.
>
Not for our relationship with God.
>
> >> I never said that Siddhartha found Christ - there is no Christ to
> >> find. I said that Siddhartha found the truth to the path to the
> >> cessation of suffering and enlightenment.
> >>
> >
> >The latter is Christ, neighbor.
>
> Did Christ teach the Four Noble Truths that lead to the practice of
> the Eightfold Path to liberation, that lead to the perfection of
> wisdom that leads to nirvana?
>
Christ is the path to the cessation of suffering and the whole of enlightenment.
>
> >> >Then why do you call buddha "lord" ?
> >>
> >> It is a traditional term of respect.
>
> >...and reverence. You call buddha "lord" and I call Jesus "Lord."
>
> I revere the teachings of Lord Buddha.
>
As so you worship him as I revere the teachings of Lord Christ and worship Him.
>
> >> Your salvation lies within your own mind.
> >
> >Only if you were God, but you are not. It is written that Satan "sold" the idea of disobedience to Adam and
> >Eve with the lie that they would have God's power. One can't help but wonder if buddha bought into this idea.
>
> You cannot seriously be saying that you believe in the literal
> existence of Adam and Eve?
>
Yes. There is actually scientific evidence at the genetic level for the existence of Eve.
>
> >> Seek the
> >> Noble Eightfold Path to the cessation of suffering.
> >>
> >
> >Have you stopped suffering, Mozz?
>
> I have.
>
Then what are you looking for when you come here?
Why do you feel the need to defend aspects of Siddhartha's life?
>
> >> >For this wish, you remain in my prayers, neighbor Mozz.
> >>
> >> You remain in my prayers also Andrew.
> >>
> >
> >Who are you praying to, Mozz?
>
> I pray to my buddha nature.
>
It remains my choice to pray to God, in Christ's name, on your behalf.
Bob (this one)
> Mozz wrote:
>
>>Hello Andrew,
>
>>>>>You are welcome to cite references that support your dissenting view.
>>>>
>>>>Sure, no problem Andrew. For specifics about Indian cultural status of
>>>>women at the time of Siddhartha I refer you to an excellent book by
>>>>Karen Armstrong called Buddha. It's meticulously researched and I
>>>>think you might enjoy it.
>>>>http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0753813408/qid=1077556410/sr=1-7/ref=sr_1_11_7/202-6458459-6302219
>>>>that's the Amazon link to it. Enjoy!
>>>>
>>>How about something on-line to facilitate this discussion?
>>
>>Most of my research is from good old fashioned books I'm sorry to say.
>>If I come across any relevant online work I'll flag it up for you
>>though.
>>
> I am surprised you have not returned better prepared.
Bwahahahahaha...
Chung seems unable to contemplate the notion of actually doing
research away from his computer. Mozz is very well prepared, indeed.
It's the lazy Chung who looks the fool here. "Oh, no. Not a book. I
can't look at books..."
The sheer arrogance of Chung to say he wants information and then to
dictate the form it should take is just a hoot.
>>>>>>Unfortunately though you are also exhibiting a damaging state of
>>>>>>imbalance and partiality when making pronouncements on other equally
>>>>>>valid and proven systems of belief.
>>>>>
>>>>>Damaging for whom?
>>>>
>>>>Damaging for a fair impartial and reasoned spirit of enquiry.
>>>>
>>>Why should we be concerned about this non-entity?
>>
>>Surely you are not asking me why we should be concerned about
>>fairness, impartiality and reason?
>>
> These things will take care of themselves. They do not need either your protection or nurturing.
Astonishing. Simply astonishing. Chung thinks that fairness,
impartiality and reason just *happen* - no thinking necessary, no
rules for the discourse necessary. The fact that we are a designed to
be a nation of laws means that everybody with an IQ greater than a
grasshopper's has seen the need for these elements to be present or
we're no better than animals.
It's because Chung feels no compunction about behaving in his savage
and malicious way that he doesn't want restriction on his evil. To
him, anyone with even a modicum of civility is free meat for his
abuse. And it's civility that's the product of fairness, impartiality
and reason.
> Go ahead and cite something on-line that supports your assertion that and Indian woman advanced in social status if
> her husband chose to pursue a spiritual path.
<LOL> And make damn sure that it's online of Chung will call you a
liar or something because he can't see it on his screen. <LOL>
> Folks recognize sin even when they do not believe in God.
And they recognize fraud, quackery, charlatanry and malice, too.
>>>Think carefully about these verifiable facts:
Unfortunately, not one of the five is a *verifiable* fact. Jesus is
real to those of us who believe. To everyone else, he isn't. There are
no direct documentary pieces of evidence.
>>>(1) Jesus Christ existed as a man.
>>
>>I am prepared to accept that this was indeed likely.
Likely is as far as the *proof* goes.
>>>(2) Jesus Christ said as a man that He is the "Truth, the Way, and the Life" and the Son of God.
>>
>>The most we can say with accuracy here is that we are implored to
>>accept that Jesus once said these things by the writers of the
>>gospels.
Jesus didn't write any of the new testament himself. It's all
second-hand or third hand information. There's no *proof* he said any
of the things attributed to him.
> It is so written in the Holy Bible. There are no evidence to support any assertions that He did not say what has
> been attributed to Him in the Bible.
Hilarious. As the slow-witted Chung has heard before and still seems
not to get, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." There's
no other evidence that Jesus said anything at all beyond the bible and
the apocrypha, and that's not evidence, either.
>>>(3) His followers have testified that He is the Messiah to their deaths.
>>
>>This does not mean Jesus was in fact the messiah. It merely shows the
>>strength of belief held by his followers. In the very same way look to
>>the Palestinian suicide-bombers of today or the Islamic Jihad members,
>>or indeed the Al Queda operatives who also exhibit the same zeal in
>>the name of their god.
>
> These folks are dead. We live.
And the writers of the gospel are dead, too, but the point here is
that people swearing and testifying are merely people swearing and
testifying. It doesn't make it truth, it just makes it their stories.
>>>(4) Despite (3), here we are, far greater in number and in strength.
>>
>>For everything there is a season. Things change. Civilisations rise,
>>civilisations fall....
>
> Christianity is not a civilization. There are followers of Christ in every nation on this planet.
Yes, there are. But do read Ecclesiastes. It talks about the
inevitable changes of the world.
>>>(5) All who have challenged these facts, here at SMC and elsewhere, have fallen.
>>
>>And yet I am still standing.
>
> You are treading water. Your raft has long been sunk.
Chung has nothing to say, so he says something nasty. Why am I not
surprised?
>>>These facts will stand irrespective of my belief that Christ is my personal Lord and Savior or your disbelief
>>>of it.
>>
>>You have merely presented me with typical fundamentalist Christian
>>dogma, not verifiable facts.
>>
> 1-5 above are verifiable facts and not dogma.
Not facts and not dogma, either. Not to anyone normal. They're the
wacko fancies of Chung the cultist who needs to believe that the
extreme is reasonable. That absolute is rational. That any
pronouncement Chung makes is de facto "truthful" because he's making
it. The pinnacle of arrogance...
>>And yet your God also made athiests, muslims, jews, hindus, communists
>>etc etc....is it also no surprise their beliefs are not in accordance
>>with your God?
>
> Yes. It is no surprise that they, like buddha, got lost.
>
> God also gave them free will to choose the wayward path.
Like this...?
free will theism -- Generally, the view within Christian theology
affirming that agents created by God are endowed with the ability and
inclination to make choices, commitments, decisions, etc. without
being bound to do so by God. Specifically, the view within the general
view that God grants such freedom and consequently God can only know
what is present or past, but not what is conditionally future.
Or maybe like this...?
"... and I will go as far as Martin Luther, in that strong assertion
of his, where he says, ‘If any man doth ascribe of salvation, even the
very least, to the free will of man, he knoweth nothing of grace, and
he hath not learnt Jesus Christ aright.’ It may seem a harsh
sentiment; but he who in his soul believes that man does of his own
free will turn to God, cannot have been taught of God, for that is one
of the first principles taught us when God begins with us, that we
have neither will nor power, but that He gives both; that He is ‘Alpha
and Omega’ in the salvation of men."
Charles H. Spurgeon from the sermon "Free Will A Slave" (1855)
referring to Luther's book The Bondage of the Will
>>>Yes. Paying lip service to anyone or anything is a sign of respect especially when there is disagreement.
>>>The servant that says "Yes, Sir" to his master when he is thinking "No, I don't want to do this" is being
>>>respectful.
>>
>>This is nonsense.
>
> It is the truth.
>
>>It is not respectful to say one thing and yet mean
>>another.
>
> In the relationship between a servant and his/her master, it is respectful for the servant to abide by the master's
> wishes even if there is disagreement.
>
>>It is quite the opposite.
>>
> Not for our relationship with God.
Really? Chung thinks it's wise to lie to God like he does to humans?
>>>>>Then why do you call buddha "lord" ?
>>>>
>>>>It is a traditional term of respect.
>>
>>>...and reverence. You call buddha "lord" and I call Jesus "Lord."
>>
>>I revere the teachings of Lord Buddha.
>>
> As so you worship him as I revere the teachings of Lord Christ and worship Him.
Even Chung should be able to see the differences between revering
teachings and revering a person. He seems unable to see the difference
between ideas and flesh. Chung has apparently never heard of the word
"Lord" used as anything but a religious term. Never heard of Lord
Harlech? Never heard of "Lord of the Dance?" Never heard of "Lord of
the Rings?" Poor obtuse Chung...
BURKE'S PEERAGE & GENTRY'S A TO Z GUIDE
"lord: a general term denoting a dignity. It may be hereditary, in
which case it is specifically applied to a lord of Parliament in the
peerage (2) of Scotland and colloquially or loosely to a male who
holds the title of baron, earl, marquess or viscount, either
substantively or as a courtesy title."
<http://www.burkes-peerage.net/sites/peerage/sitepages/page66-lord.asp>
>>>>Your salvation lies within your own mind.
>>>
>>>Only if you were God, but you are not. It is written that Satan "sold" the idea of disobedience to Adam and
>>>Eve with the lie that they would have God's power. One can't help but wonder if buddha bought into this idea.
>>
>>You cannot seriously be saying that you believe in the literal
>>existence of Adam and Eve?
>>
> Yes. There is actually scientific evidence at the genetic level for the existence of Eve.
This is about as shocking a "revelation" of Chung's anti-scientific
aberration as he's ever posted. The genetic information is hardly
evidence and it's being essentially debunked by research and fossil
evidence. Here are a few places to look, actual universities, not
wacko religious cranks talking.
"Even though the studies refer to a single man or woman in the past,
they do not imply that those people were a couple or even that they
were the only parents of all humans. Their primary significance is in
pointing to the time when anatomically modern human beings, Homo
sapiens sapiens, evolved from a more primitive ancestor, generally
thought to be an archaic form of Homo sapiens. Most experts think the
founders of the modern species numbered around 10,000."
<http://www.people.virginia.edu/~rjh9u/adameve.html>
--------------------
"Study puts ‘Eve theory’ of human evolution to rest"
"Two million years ago somewhere in Africa, a small group of
individuals became separated from other australopithecines. This
population bottleneck led to a series of sudden, interrelated
changes—in body size, brain size, skeletal proportions and
behavior—that jump-started the evolution of our species.
"That is the conclusion of a new U-M study published in the January
2000 issue of Molecular Biology and Evolution that analyzes a broad
range of genetic, fossil and archeological evidence to decipher the
most likely scenario for the start of human evolution."
<http://www.umich.edu/~urecord/9900/Jan17_00/12.htm>
--------------------------
"The findings are the latest evidence in the continuing scientific
controversy about the origin of modern Homo sapiens. Many scientists
believe that all living humans can trace their ancestry exclusively to
a small group of ancient humans, probably Africans, living around
100,000 years ago. This explanation—known as the Eve hypothesis or
replacement theory—means that all other early human groups, whose
fossils date from this time back to almost 2 million years ago, must
have become extinct, possibly wiped out in a prehistoric genetic
holocaust.
"Other scientists, including Wolpoff and his colleagues on this study,
maintain that there is little evidence that a small group originating
in a single geographic region replaced the entire population of early
humans.
"The genetic evidence always has been unclear, Wolpoff and his
colleagues note, because different genes support different theories:
Mitochondrial genes support replacement theory, while nuclear genes
support the development of an older, worldwide species of human ancestors.
" 'In asking the question a different way and directly addressing the
fossils, this study provides compelling evidence that replacement is
the wrong explanation,' Wolpoff says. 'Instead, the findings support
the theory of multiregional evolution. Modern humans are the present
manifestation of an older worldwide species with populations connected
by gene flow and the exchange of ideas. Modern human groups are very
much more similar than different because of comparable adaptations to
ideas and technologies that spread across the inhabited world and
because of the dispersals of successful genes promoted by selection.'"
<http://www.umich.edu/~urecord/0001/Jan22_01/12.htm>
-------------------------------
Genetic Distance and Language Affinities Between Autochthonous Human
Populations
"Part of this research was the theory of "Eve," a single female in
Africa, around 200,000 years ago, from whom every living human being
is now descended. This does not mean that there were not other human
females -- there were -- or that we are not descended from them too --
we are. The theory is based on the circumstance that some human
genetic material is contained in the mitochondria, little organs in a
cell outside the nucleus (where most genetic material is contained).
Sperm cells do not pass on their mitochondria to a fertilzed egg and
so all human mitochondrial DNA is inherited from the mother. If a
woman has only sons (a highly desirable result in many traditional
cultures), then her own mitochondrial DNA is actually lost. Over time,
this seems to have happened to all lines of descent of Mitochondrial
DNA, except one, the line from "Eve." Another interesting feature of
the chart is the closeness of American Indians to modern population
across Europe, the Middle East, and northern East Asia. Thus,
curiously, Europeans are more closely related to American Indians than
to Polynesians. Finally, it is noteworthy that skin color is not at
all helpful is providing clues to genetic affinity. The darkest
colored people on earth, in Africa, India, Melanesia, and Australia,
are scattered between groups that are only distantly related. Dark
skin color is certainly a function of living under the equatorial sun
for many generations, but all human populations have the genetic
wherewithal to make that adaptation."
<http://www.friesian.com/trees.htm>
> Then what are you looking for when you come here?
>
> Why do you feel the need to defend aspects of Siddhartha's life?
"Explain" is more like it. When Chung does his little snide abrasions,
Mozz rises above it. He explains Chung's relentless and deliberate
misunderstandings. He makes Buddhism sound reasonable, and he, by his
moderate and rational tone, makes Chung look like the fundamentalist
crank he is.
I'm praying for everybody.
Bob
Mozz
>> Most of my research is from good old fashioned books I'm sorry to say.
>> If I come across any relevant online work I'll flag it up for you
>> though.
>
>I am surprised you have not returned better prepared.
My preferance for research is books as opposed to the internet. I have
found a high proportion of online research flawed and unreliable due
to the lack of editorial checks and balances.
As I said, if I happen upon anything useful on the subjects in
question I will happily pass this information on to you. However, if
you decide to doubt what I have said then that is perfectly
acceptable. No problem.
>> Surely you are not asking me why we should be concerned about
>> fairness, impartiality and reason?
>These things will take care of themselves. They do not need either your protection or nurturing.
And yet my past experience of debating with you and some others here
on SMC has revealed a flagrant disregard for fairness, impartiality
and reason.
>Go ahead and cite something on-line that supports your assertion that and Indian woman advanced in social status if
>her husband chose to pursue a spiritual path.
See above.
>> I understand that a widely held definition of sin is 'transgression
>> and thus seperation from God' - If so, the concept of sin itself
>> upholds a mistaken view of reality as a belief in a creator deity is a
>> delusion.
>
>Folks recognize sin even when they do not believe in God.
Can you give some examples of this?
>> Denial is to choose to believe in the fantasy of a creator deity.
>Denial is to disbelieve rather than to believe.
I do not believe in god, and yet I am not in denial of the truth.
>Plying a trade is not the same as studying/thinking.
So as a doctor you accept that you have no need to study or think?
>> No one is walking with Christ,
>
>Many are.
>
>> as in reality Christ does not exist
>
>According to buddha?
Budda was born 500 years before Jesus. If you equate Jesus with God,
then Buddha did not accept that there was a need to believe in such a
being. In fact belief in such a thing is pure delusion and a cause for
more suffering.
>> other than as a set of projections built on interpretations picked up
>> from the culture and environment around you over the years.
>>
>
>Have you learned this from buddha?
See above.
>> >(2) Jesus Christ said as a man that He is the "Truth, the Way, and the Life" and the Son of God.
>>
>> The most we can say with accuracy here is that we are implored to
>> accept that Jesus once said these things by the writers of the
>> gospels.
>>
>
>It is so written in the Holy Bible. There are no evidence to support any assertions that He did not say what has
>been attributed to Him in the Bible.
There is no evidence to support any assertions that he did actually
say what has been attributed to him either. More so, there is much
evidence to show that the synoptic gospels were a gradual 'patch work'
construction by many people over the decades after Jesus died.
An excellent book to read would be The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q &
Christian Origins by Burton L. Mack.
Here is a quote from a review -
"The ideas in this book support a conclusion that can also be arrived
at without them, namely that the New Testament as we know it is the
result of different groups of people, who lived in different time
periods and social circumstances, had different objectives for writing
what they wrote, and whose collective efforts are best characterized
(as this book does) as the making of the Christian myth. Compared to
such a view, the idea that The Bible is "the infallible word of God"
and that those who "believe" in it "have it right" while everyone who
doesn't "has got it wrong", seems quite antiquated and naive. Indeed,
when the Christian myth is recognized as just that, it becomes the
equal of other religious myths, and the peoples who adhere to them,
equal among equals. When the notion disappears that the Christian myth
provides the ultimate context, the ultimate explanation, and ultimate
destiny of mankind, perhaps then this world will have a better chance
of becoming a paradise of sorts for its inhabitants."
>> >(3) His followers have testified that He is the Messiah to their deaths.
>>
>> This does not mean Jesus was in fact the messiah. It merely shows the
>> strength of belief held by his followers. In the very same way look to
>> the Palestinian suicide-bombers of today or the Islamic Jihad members,
>> or indeed the Al Queda operatives who also exhibit the same zeal in
>> the name of their god.
>
>These folks are dead. We live.
Until it is your time to die as well.
>> >(4) Despite (3), here we are, far greater in number and in strength.
>>
>> For everything there is a season. Things change. Civilisations rise,
>> civilisations fall....
>
>Christianity is not a civilization. There are followers of Christ in every nation on this planet.
Religions rise, religions fall...some are saying even now that
Christianity is on the wane and Islam on the rise...For everything
there is a season.
>> >(5) All who have challenged these facts, here at SMC and elsewhere, have fallen.
>>
>> And yet I am still standing.
>You are treading water. Your raft has long been sunk.
Explain exactly what you mean by this curious analogy you enjoy making
so frequently?
>1-5 above are verifiable facts and not dogma.
What are your criteria for what constitutes a fact?
>>
>> >> >Is the crucifix a graven image of Christ?
>> >>
>> >> What do you think the crucifix signifies?
>>
>> >It reminds us of God's sacrifice.
>>
>> Ah, it fulfils the same function as the image of a Golden Calf once
>> reminded the Israelites of Mamon on the slopes of Mount Sinai?
>>
>
>No.
The calf was an image of a god - Mamon. As such it was a reminder.
The crucifix (with or without a Jesus figure on) is an image of God's
agency in the world - as such it is a reminder. It fulfils the same
function.
>> And yet your God also made athiests, muslims, jews, hindus, communists
>> etc etc....is it also no surprise their beliefs are not in accordance
>> with your God?
>
>Yes. It is no surprise that they, like buddha, got lost.
>
>God also gave them free will to choose the wayward path.
Your original point was that Buddha came to the same conclusion as God
because God made Buddha. By your logic, Buddha had free will,
therefore his wise conclusions were of his own choosing and had
nothing to do with God's influence. You can't have it both ways
Andrew.
>> >> In psychology this is
>> >> witnessed by the so called 'zealous' who try so hard to convince
>> >> others of their beliefs they become quite agitated and angry when
>> >> others show resistance.
>> >> This is because they unconsciously are really
>> >> doubting their beliefs and secretly wish to convince themselves.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Is that how you would explain the fact that I am neither agitated nor angry with you?
>> >(i.e. I am secure in my beliefs and have no need to convince either myself or you)
>>
>> Interesting that you assume I refer to you.
>I didn't.
Your question 'Is that how you would explain the fact that I am
neither agitated nor angry with you?' suggests you did.
>> And yet your posts betray you.
>
>My posts serve to glorify God.
There is no God other than that conjured in your mind by the strength
of your conviction.
>> You still strive to convince me that
>> you are right and I am wrong
>
>Simply giving you information.
Propaganda.
>> (all the while unconsciously trying to
>> reinforce your own beliefs - see your 5 points above)
>>
>
>If I were insecure in my beliefs, why am I not acting as you would expect for someone who is insecure is his/her
>beliefs?
You posts betray the reality of your state of mind.
>Where is the "agitation" and the "anger" ?
Your posts are rife with 'passive-aggressive' attempts at
manipulation. Read them back with a more open mind if you can.
>> >Yes. Paying lip service to anyone or anything is a sign of respect especially when there is disagreement.
>> >The servant that says "Yes, Sir" to his master when he is thinking "No, I don't want to do this" is being
>> >respectful.
>>
>> This is nonsense.
>
>It is the truth.
>
>> It is not respectful to say one thing and yet mean
>> another.
>
>In the relationship between a servant and his/her master, it is respectful for the servant to abide by the master's
>wishes even if there is disagreement.
So by that logic you would advocate lying to God?
>Christ is the path to the cessation of suffering and the whole of enlightenment.
The Christ portrayed in the gospels does not lead to true cessation of
suffering or enlightenment. He advocates that one place ones salvation
in the hands of another. Buddha showed that ones salvation is to be
found within oneself and through ones own effort and responsibility
one can reach nirvana. There is no need to look elsewhere.
>> You cannot seriously be saying that you believe in the literal
>> existence of Adam and Eve?
>Yes. There is actually scientific evidence at the genetic level for the existence of Eve.
Can you show me this evidence? It seems to fly in the face of all
respectable scientific opinion that I am aware of.
>Then what are you looking for when you come here?
An opportunity to help others. Meditation helped me lower my blood
pressure significantly and it remains low without medication. If
anyone would like to talk about meditation techniques they could do at
home I'd be happy to help.
>Why do you feel the need to defend aspects of Siddhartha's life?
I feel it is only right to point out errors others make in ignorance
of the facts regarding Siddhartha's life.
>It remains my choice to pray to God, in Christ's name, on your behalf.
Thank you, but I would rather you chose to look within yourself and
seek the truth.
"Through many a birth I wandered in this endless cycle of births and
deaths,
seeking, but not finding, the builder of the house.
Sorrowful is it to be born again and again.
O house-builder! you are seen. You shall build no house again
All your rafters are broken. Your ridge pole is shattered.
My mind has attained the Unconditioned. Achieved is the end of
craving".
Here the Buddha explained how rebirth entails suffering. Through many
lives He wandered and suffered, and searched for the architect of this
body (the 'house'). In His final birth, He discovered that the creator
or architect was not an external being but was man's own internal
nature. This elusive architect is Craving or Attachment, a self
created force latent in all.
May all beings find true happiness.
Mozz x
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Hello Andrew,
Hi Mozz.
> >> Most of my research is from good old fashioned books I'm sorry to say.
> >> If I come across any relevant online work I'll flag it up for you
> >> though.
> >
> >I am surprised you have not returned better prepared.
>
> My preferance for research is books as opposed to the internet. I have
> found a high proportion of online research flawed and unreliable due
> to the lack of editorial checks and balances.
>
Ok, show us the few online references about buddha that you favor.
> As I said, if I happen upon anything useful on the subjects in
> question I will happily pass this information on to you. However, if
> you decide to doubt what I have said then that is perfectly
> acceptable.
This is called a discussion. Whether I doubt you should not concern you. Whether you doubt me does not concern me.
> No problem.
Then why mention it?
>
> >> Surely you are not asking me why we should be concerned about
> >> fairness, impartiality and reason?
>
> >These things will take care of themselves. They do not need either your protection or nurturing.
>
> And yet my past experience of debating with you and some others here
> on SMC has revealed a flagrant disregard for fairness, impartiality
> and reason.
I see this as a discussion, an activity for information exchange.
Why do you seem so defensive?
> >Go ahead and cite something on-line that supports your assertion that and Indian woman advanced in social status if
> >her husband chose to pursue a spiritual path.
>
> See above.
>
"on-line"
> >> I understand that a widely held definition of sin is 'transgression
> >> and thus seperation from God' - If so, the concept of sin itself
> >> upholds a mistaken view of reality as a belief in a creator deity is a
> >> delusion.
> >
> >Folks recognize sin even when they do not believe in God.
>
> Can you give some examples of this?
>
You do not believe in God and yet you recognize a "disregard for fairness."
To kill another is unfair.
To steal from another is unfair.
To bear false witness regarding another is unfair.
(Stephen likely will chime in right about here claiming to be unfairly accused of cyberstalking... this is to be
expected because the untruthful will often see truth as being unfair to them)
>
> >> Denial is to choose to believe in the fantasy of a creator deity.
>
> >Denial is to disbelieve rather than to believe.
>
> I do not believe in god, and yet I am not in denial of the truth.
>
A person who is in denial is typically not aware of it.
> >Plying a trade is not the same as studying/thinking.
>
> So as a doctor you accept that you have no need to study or think?
>
No. I choose to continue studying and thinking. There are those who choose to rely solely on continued clinical
experience..
> >> No one is walking with Christ,
> >
> >Many are.
> >
> >> as in reality Christ does not exist
> >
> >According to buddha?
>
> Budda was born 500 years before Jesus.
Jesus existed from the beginning of time.
> If you equate Jesus with God,
> then Buddha did not accept that there was a need to believe in such a
> being. In fact belief in such a thing is pure delusion and a cause for
> more suffering.
This would be fiction.
In truth, our sins are the cause of our suffering. Jesus recognized this because He had no sin. The only times He
suffered during His time as a "son of man" was when He took our sins upon Himself. First, when He fasted and suffered
from hunger as Satan tempted Him. Recall that succumbing to temptation to eat something forbidden and thereby violating
God's One Commandment was how Adam and Eve sinned . Second, when He suffered from anger at money changing being
conducted at a synagogue. Recall that the reason for the money changing was the graven images of a god-emperor on the
coins. This is a violation of the first two of God's X Commandments. Third, when He suffered from the pain of death as
a consequence of the false witnessing by men, we end up seeing many of the rest of the X Commandments violated (III, VI,
VIII, IX, X).
> >> other than as a set of projections built on interpretations picked up
> >> from the culture and environment around you over the years.
> >>
> >
> >Have you learned this from buddha?
>
> See above.
>
Yes, please do.
>
> >> >(2) Jesus Christ said as a man that He is the "Truth, the Way, and the Life" and the Son of God.
> >>
> >> The most we can say with accuracy here is that we are implored to
> >> accept that Jesus once said these things by the writers of the
> >> gospels.
> >>
> >
> >It is so written in the Holy Bible. There are no evidence to support any assertions that He did not say what has
> >been attributed to Him in the Bible.
>
> There is no evidence to support any assertions that he did actually
> say what has been attributed to him either.
Similarly, there is no evidence to support anything spoken that you would attribute to buddha or anyone else before the
age of electronic recording devices.
> More so, there is much
> evidence to show that the synoptic gospels were a gradual 'patch work'
> construction by many people over the decades after Jesus died.
Does anyone have a recording of what Jesus said?
> An excellent book to read would be The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q &
> Christian Origins by Burton L. Mack.
I am familiar with the stories concerning the Book of Q.
> Here is a quote from a review -
> "The ideas in this book support a conclusion
In truth, ideas do not support any conclusion.
> that can also be arrived
> at without them, namely that the New Testament as we know it is the
> result of different groups of people, who lived in different time
> periods and social circumstances, had different objectives for writing
> what they wrote, and whose collective efforts are best characterized
> (as this book does) as the making of the Christian myth.
If it were simply just a myth, how would one explain the reactions of the anti-christians that you have witnessed here
at SMC?
Historical examples of myths did not encounter the opposition that Christianity encountered and has overcome.
Do you know of any historical accounts of folks who believed caesar was a god being tracked down to be executed?
Any worshippers of Zeus?
Any worshippers of Apollo?
Any worshippers of buddha?
> Compared to
> such a view, the idea that The Bible is "the infallible word of God"
> and that those who "believe" in it "have it right" while everyone who
> doesn't "has got it wrong", seems quite antiquated and naive.
An idea is either true or false.
The idea that the Bible is the word of God is true.
The idea that buddha's teachings are the word of God is false.
> Indeed,
> when the Christian myth is recognized as just that, it becomes the
> equal of other religious myths, and the peoples who adhere to them,
> equal among equals.
Good thing Christ is not a myth.
To know Christ is to know humility.
To know we are not better than our neighbor.
To know that we need Him because we are not superior.
> When the notion disappears that the Christian myth
> provides the ultimate context, the ultimate explanation, and ultimate
> destiny of mankind, perhaps then this world will have a better chance
> of becoming a paradise of sorts for its inhabitants."
You have only to visit China where religion is suppressed to see what kind of paradise this reviewer envisions.
> >> >(3) His followers have testified that He is the Messiah to their deaths.
> >>
> >> This does not mean Jesus was in fact the messiah. It merely shows the
> >> strength of belief held by his followers. In the very same way look to
> >> the Palestinian suicide-bombers of today or the Islamic Jihad members,
> >> or indeed the Al Queda operatives who also exhibit the same zeal in
> >> the name of their god.
> >
> >These folks are dead. We live.
>
> Until it is your time to die as well.
>
We have eternal life through Christ.
> >> >(4) Despite (3), here we are, far greater in number and in strength.
> >>
> >> For everything there is a season. Things change. Civilisations rise,
> >> civilisations fall....
> >
> >Christianity is not a civilization. There are followers of Christ in every nation on this planet.
>
> Religions rise, religions fall...
And so truth survives myth.
> some are saying even now that
> Christianity is on the wane and Islam on the rise...
Not if their followers continue to commit suicide-bombings and other acts of terrorism.
> For everything
> there is a season.
Except truth.
> >> >(5) All who have challenged these facts, here at SMC and elsewhere, have fallen.
> >>
> >> And yet I am still standing.
>
> >You are treading water. Your raft has long been sunk.
>
> Explain exactly what you mean by this curious analogy you enjoy making
> so frequently?
>
You have placed your faith on the teachings of a dead man who discovered emptiness.
>
> >1-5 above are verifiable facts and not dogma.
>
> What are your criteria for what constitutes a fact?
A fact is true.
> >>
> >> >> >Is the crucifix a graven image of Christ?
> >> >>
> >> >> What do you think the crucifix signifies?
> >>
> >> >It reminds us of God's sacrifice.
> >>
> >> Ah, it fulfils the same function as the image of a Golden Calf once
> >> reminded the Israelites of Mamon on the slopes of Mount Sinai?
> >>
> >
> >No.
>
> The calf was an image of a god - Mamon. As such it was a reminder.
It served to more than remind. It became an object of worship or reverence.
>
> The crucifix (with or without a Jesus figure on) is an image of God's
> agency in the world - as such it is a reminder. It fulfils the same
> function.
Sorry, but it does not.
> >> And yet your God also made athiests, muslims, jews, hindus, communists
> >> etc etc....is it also no surprise their beliefs are not in accordance
> >> with your God?
> >
> >Yes. It is no surprise that they, like buddha, got lost.
> >
> >God also gave them free will to choose the wayward path.
>
> Your original point was that Buddha came to the same conclusion as God
> because God made Buddha.
My point is that because God made buddha, it would be expected that many of his ideas could have come from God.
> By your logic, Buddha had free will,
He did.
> therefore his wise conclusions were of his own choosing
He could have chosen God's ideas.
> and had
> nothing to do with God's influence.
Almost everything that buddha was, *almost* everything that he saw, touched, tasted, or otherwise experienced was from
God. It is more than likely that buddha was influenced by God although he turned away from Him and embraced emptiness.
The latter is free will, Mozz.
> You can't have it both ways
You can't serve God and embrace emptiness.
>
> Andrew.
>
> >> >> In psychology this is
> >> >> witnessed by the so called 'zealous' who try so hard to convince
> >> >> others of their beliefs they become quite agitated and angry when
> >> >> others show resistance.
> >> >> This is because they unconsciously are really
> >> >> doubting their beliefs and secretly wish to convince themselves.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Is that how you would explain the fact that I am neither agitated nor angry with you?
> >> >(i.e. I am secure in my beliefs and have no need to convince either myself or you)
> >>
> >> Interesting that you assume I refer to you.
>
> >I didn't.
>
> Your question 'Is that how you would explain the fact that I am
> neither agitated nor angry with you?' suggests you did.
You described that the angry and agitated behavior of "fanatics" revealed their insecurity regarding their own
beliefs. If I had assumed that you were calling me a fanatic, I would have simply told you "I am not a fanatic."
Instead, I assumed you were not calling me a fanatic, which allows me to point out that my beliefs in Christ are
secure. How else would you explain my composure when encountering the "angry and agitated" animosity of those who are
offended by my being Christian.
> >> And yet your posts betray you.
> >
> >My posts serve to glorify God.
>
> There is no God other than that conjured in your mind by the strength
> of your conviction.
>
Your buddha now knows better for he now knows the truth.
> >> You still strive to convince me that
> >> you are right and I am wrong
> >
> >Simply giving you information.
>
> Propaganda.
If all you are getting from this discussion is propaganda, why are you here?
> >> (all the while unconsciously trying to
> >> reinforce your own beliefs - see your 5 points above)
> >>
> >
> >If I were insecure in my beliefs, why am I not acting as you would expect for someone who is insecure is his/her
> >beliefs?
>
> You posts betray the reality of your state of mind.
>
God would have me write truthfully.
> >Where is the "agitation" and the "anger" ?
>
> Your posts are rife with 'passive-aggressive' attempts at
> manipulation.
Shall I repeat the question?
> Read them back with a more open mind if you can.
>
I still see the same unanswered questions. Your not answering them is very telling and betrays your insecurities.
> >> >Yes. Paying lip service to anyone or anything is a sign of respect especially when there is disagreement.
> >> >The servant that says "Yes, Sir" to his master when he is thinking "No, I don't want to do this" is being
> >> >respectful.
> >>
> >> This is nonsense.
> >
> >It is the truth.
> >
> >> It is not respectful to say one thing and yet mean
> >> another.
> >
> >In the relationship between a servant and his/her master, it is respectful for the servant to abide by the master's
> >wishes even if there is disagreement.
>
> So by that logic you would advocate lying to God?
Not possible. He knows what we are thinking as we are thinking it. This is why there is not an 11th Commandment like
"Thou shalt not lie to God."
> >Christ is the path to the cessation of suffering and the whole of enlightenment.
>
> The Christ portrayed in the gospels does not lead to true cessation of
> suffering or enlightenment.
A person who conquers suffering and achieves complete enlightenment defeats death.
Christ, as described in the Gospels, defeated death.
> He advocates that one place ones salvation
> in the hands of another.
Christ did more than advocate... He has saved us.
> Buddha showed that ones salvation is to be
> found within oneself and through ones own effort and responsibility
> one can reach nirvana.
Has Buddha ever said he reached nirvana?
> There is no need to look elsewhere.
>
Do you really believe that you do not need anyone else?
> >> You cannot seriously be saying that you believe in the literal
> >> existence of Adam and Eve?
>
> >Yes. There is actually scientific evidence at the genetic level for the existence of Eve.
>
> Can you show me this evidence?
We know the genetic sequence of the mitochondrial DNA of Eve.
If you really want the Pubmed citation, let me know. Would be more than happy to set up a link for you.
> It seems to fly in the face of all
> respectable scientific opinion that I am aware of.
>
Truth is better than opinion.
> >Then what are you looking for when you come here?
>
> An opportunity to help others.
Haven't seen you contribute in this regard.
> Meditation helped me lower my blood
> pressure significantly and it remains low without medication.
How's your blood pressure during this discussion ? :-)
> If
> anyone would like to talk about meditation techniques they could do at
> home I'd be happy to help.
>
Any studies that show meditation works independent of other lifestyle altering effects that may be coincident with
meditation ?
> >Why do you feel the need to defend aspects of Siddhartha's life?
>
> I feel it is only right to point out errors others make in ignorance
> of the facts regarding Siddhartha's life.
>
Sounds like these "errors" wound you.
> >It remains my choice to pray to God, in Christ's name, on your behalf.
>
> Thank you, but I would rather you chose to look within yourself and
> seek the truth.
>
Have already found the truth in Christ. Before that, nothing within me could compare.
> "Through many a birth I wandered in this endless cycle of births and
> deaths,
And so he (we) suffered during our time here on earth witnessing many births and deaths.
> seeking, but not finding, the builder of the house.
God, the Father/Creator ("builder of the house"), is too big to be taken in by our eyes.
> Sorrowful is it to be born again and again.
> O house-builder! you are seen.
Not sure who buddha saw here. It was not God.
> You shall build no house again
> All your rafters are broken. Your ridge pole is shattered.
The universe remains as it was.
> My mind has attained the Unconditioned.
Sounds like a delusion.
> Achieved is the end of
> craving".
In a word: denial.
> Here the Buddha explained how rebirth entails suffering. Through many
> lives He wandered and suffered, and searched for the architect of this
> body (the 'house'). In His final birth, He discovered that the creator
> or architect was not an external being but was man's own internal
> nature.
When was this "final birth" ?
> This elusive architect is Craving or Attachment, a self
> created force latent in all.
>
So you believe in self-creation?
> May all beings find true happiness.
>
> Mozz x
Truth is better.
You remain in my prayers, neighbor.
Mozz
>> My preferance for research is books as opposed to the internet. I have
>> found a high proportion of online research flawed and unreliable due
>> to the lack of editorial checks and balances.
>
>Ok, show us the few online references about buddha that you favor.
I don't particularly favour or disfavour any online buddhist
references. As I have stated, most of my research has been from books,
published works and direct one to one teaching. For example, last year
I finished the Foundation Of Buddhist Thought two year intensive
course here in London taught directly by an authentic Tibetan geshe
(monk) who himself was a direct student of His Holiness the Dalai
Lama. So as you see, I prefer my sources of information to be as
reliable and authentic as possible.
>This is called a discussion.
Respectfully Andrew, you appear to conduct your 'discussions' in a
rather adversarial manner (and not only the ones with me). Perhaps
you are unconsciously doing so?
>Whether I doubt you should not concern you.
Why not?
>Whether you doubt me does not concern me
>> No problem.
>
>Then why mention it?
Here is an example of your passive-aggression in action.
>I see this as a discussion, an activity for information exchange.
And here an example of your ambivalence and defensiveness to truly
exchange anything of worth. You seem to need to define the paramaters
of discussion at it's most basic structural framework - the exchange
of information - data - just like computers sharing files. You make a
conscious point of leaving out the actual reason for discussions,
which is to touch others lives in a meaningful way, to inspire where
possible, to share feelings as well as data, and most of all - to
allow for the possibility of change in the individual - in both
yourself and others.
>> >Folks recognize sin even when they do not believe in God.
>>
>> Can you give some examples of this?
>>
>
>You do not believe in God and yet you recognize a "disregard for fairness."
I do not call a disregard for fairness a sin. It is a disregard for
fairness.
>To kill another is unfair.
I agree
>To steal from another is unfair.
I agree
>To bear false witness regarding another is unfair.
I agree, yet none of these moral points need be called 'sin' or indeed
have any connection to a God or religion to remain valid.
>(Stephen likely will chime in right about here claiming to be unfairly accused of cyberstalking... this is to be
>expected because the untruthful will often see truth as being unfair to them)
Stop right there Andrew and take a breath. Was that cheap shot aimed
at Stephen (whoever he may be) necessary in our 'discussion'? Was it
even a Christian thing to do? Can you not let go of things like that?
It does you no credit at all and certainly has the opposite affect of
'glorifying your God'. Could you honestly imagine Jesus behaving in
the same way as you did here? Can you not turn the other cheek instead
of stoking the fires that are clearly provocative? You see, this is
your passive-aggressive nature unchecked again. Try to take heed my
friend.
>A person who is in denial is typically not aware of it.
Precisely. Think wisely on that point my friend.
>> >Plying a trade is not the same as studying/thinking.
>>
>> So as a doctor you accept that you have no need to study or think?
>No. I choose to continue studying and thinking. There are those who choose to rely solely on continued clinical
>experience..
well, there were many 'educated' and impressive laymen who also chose
to think and study as effectively as the holy men did on the mysteries
of existence.
>> Budda was born 500 years before Jesus.
>
>Jesus existed from the beginning of time.
There is no beginning to time and there will be no end.
>> If you equate Jesus with God,
>> then Buddha did not accept that there was a need to believe in such a
>> being. In fact belief in such a thing is pure delusion and a cause for
>> more suffering.
>
>This would be fiction.
Explain to me why there is a need to believe in a creator deity?
>In truth, our sins are the cause of our suffering.
(our suffering is caused by afflictive emotion and ignorance of the
truth that all emptiness is form and all form is emptiness)
>Jesus recognized this because He had no sin. The only times He
>suffered during His time as a "son of man" was when He took our sins upon Himself.
Being a man, Jesus lived in samsaric realm therefore he would not have
escaped suffering unless he too had followed the dharma.
> First, when He fasted and suffered
>from hunger as Satan tempted Him. Recall that succumbing to temptation to eat something forbidden and thereby violating
>God's One Commandment was how Adam and Eve sinned .
Jesus was most unskilful here. To fast to excess (as buddha himself
discovered when first seeking enlightenment) is not the Middle Way. If
a string on a bow is too tight it will break when played, if too loose
it will not play at all. The same for how kind or harsh we are with
ourselves.
>Second, when He suffered from anger at money changing being
>conducted at a synagogue. Recall that the reason for the money changing was the graven images of a god-emperor on the
>coins. This is a violation of the first two of God's X Commandments.
Anger is an afflictive emotion and not at all conducive to an
enlightened state of mind. Jesus would have created negative karma and
suffering for himself by giving in to anger.
>Third, when He suffered from the pain of death as
>a consequence of the false witnessing by men, we end up seeing many of the rest of the X Commandments violated (III, VI,
>VIII, IX, X).
I pray Jesus found better circumstances in his next rebirth as a human
so he may follow the dharma and reach true liberation from suffering.
>
>Similarly, there is no evidence to support anything spoken that you would attribute to buddha or anyone else before the
>age of electronic recording devices.
The difference between Christian theology and Buddhist practice is
that whether buddha existed or not is irrelevant. What is of ultimate
value is the teachings - the dharma - which has been put into practice
by millions of people all over the world, the benefit of which can be
experienced by anyone willing to make the effort. There is no
requirement of 'faith' or 'belief' like Christianity demands. One can
see for oneself the direct benefits of buddhist practice in action.
>> More so, there is much
>> evidence to show that the synoptic gospels were a gradual 'patch work'
>> construction by many people over the decades after Jesus died.
>
>Does anyone have a recording of what Jesus said?
No
>> An excellent book to read would be The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q &
>> Christian Origins by Burton L. Mack.
>
>I am familiar with the stories concerning the Book of Q.
Then you are aware of the significance I refer.
>If it were simply just a myth, how would one explain the reactions of the anti-christians that you have witnessed here
>at SMC?
Because people like you claim that the myth is ultimately true?
>Historical examples of myths did not encounter the opposition that Christianity encountered and has overcome.
>
>Do you know of any historical accounts of folks who believed caesar was a god being tracked down to be executed?
Rome was too powerful and all encompassing to have countenanced such
dissent.
>
>Any worshippers of Zeus?
>
>Any worshippers of Apollo?
Infact there are records of such rivalries in Ancient Greece between
various political and religious factions.
>Any worshippers of buddha?
See Tibet and the Chinese occupation.
>An idea is either true or false.
Your truth is false to me. My truth is unacceptable to you. And yet
the truth is out there.
>The idea that the Bible is the word of God is true.
True in your opinion. As there is in fact no God, it is untrue.
>The idea that buddha's teachings are the word of God is false.
I agree. There is no God.
>Good thing Christ is not a myth.
Christ is precisely that.
>To know Christ is to know humility.
Can one not know humility without reference to Christ? Humility as a
concept did exist before Jesus was born.
>We have eternal life through Christ.
You will die and be reborn again and again until you eventually manage
to reach enlightenment.
>> Christianity is on the wane and Islam on the rise...
>
>Not if their followers continue to commit suicide-bombings and other acts of terrorism.
Most Muslims are peaceful and condemn the minority who perpetrate
these atrocities. Why do you choose to discount the vast majority to
high light the minority? Imbalance again Andrew? Disingenuous?
>> >You are treading water. Your raft has long been sunk.
>>
>> Explain exactly what you mean by this curious analogy you enjoy making
>> so frequently?
>>
>
>You have placed your faith on the teachings of a dead man who discovered emptiness.
Yes, that is correct. Siddhartha is dead, yet his teachings survive.
Wisdom is to know the truth that all form is emptiness, and all
emptiness form.
>> The calf was an image of a god - Mamon. As such it was a reminder.
>
>It served to more than remind. It became an object of worship or reverence.
>
>>
>> The crucifix (with or without a Jesus figure on) is an image of God's
>> agency in the world - as such it is a reminder. It fulfils the same
>> function.
>
>Sorry, but it does not.
No need to apologise. I think, like the Calf, it fulfils the
archetypal function of all 'symbols and signs'.
>My point is that because God made buddha, it would be expected that many of his ideas could have come from God.
So any wisdom comes from God alone, yet anything else is free will and
wayward. How ridiculous. Circular logic will only make you dizzy!
>
>Almost everything that buddha was, *almost* everything that he saw, touched, tasted, or otherwise experienced was from
>God. It is more than likely that buddha was influenced by God although he turned away from Him and embraced emptiness.
There is no God other than the one you serve in your mind.
>You can't serve God and embrace emptiness.
All is emptiness ultimately.
>
>You described that the angry and agitated behavior of "fanatics" revealed their insecurity regarding their own
>beliefs. If I had assumed that you were calling me a fanatic, I would have simply told you "I am not a fanatic."
>
>Instead, I assumed you were not calling me a fanatic, which allows me to point out that my beliefs in Christ are
>secure. How else would you explain my composure when encountering the "angry and agitated" animosity of those who are
>offended by my being Christian.
You are not as composed as you like to believe Andrew. I see cracks in
your mask in the other posts I read. Would you like me to list
examples for you?
>Your buddha now knows better for he now knows the truth.
Agreed. And the truth is that all is emptiness.
>If all you are getting from this discussion is propaganda, why are you here?
Would you rather I left?
>> Buddha showed that ones salvation is to be
>> found within oneself and through ones own effort and responsibility
>> one can reach nirvana.
>
>Has Buddha ever said he reached nirvana?
Yes. Nirvana is a state of being, not a place. It is possible to reach
nirvana while living.
>Do you really believe that you do not need anyone else?
I know it. Practice the dharma and you too will not need anyone else's
agency in your 'salvation'.
>
>> >> You cannot seriously be saying that you believe in the literal
>> >> existence of Adam and Eve?
>>
>> >Yes. There is actually scientific evidence at the genetic level for the existence of Eve.
>>
>> Can you show me this evidence?
>
>We know the genetic sequence of the mitochondrial DNA of Eve.
>
>If you really want the Pubmed citation, let me know. Would be more than happy to set up a link for you.
do you also believe that God made the world in 6 days and on the 7th
rested?
do you believe in the Flood and that Noah built an ark large enough to
carry two of every animal and that he did so?
do you believe Lot's wife truly turned into a pillar of salt?
do you believe there really was a Tower of Babel that reached up to
Heaven?
Please tell me.
>
>> >Then what are you looking for when you come here?
>>
>> An opportunity to help others.
>
>Haven't seen you contribute in this regard.
I am wide to recieve
>> Meditation helped me lower my blood
>> pressure significantly and it remains low without medication.
>
>How's your blood pressure during this discussion ? :-)
It remains low :-)
>Any studies that show meditation works independent of other lifestyle altering effects that may be coincident with
>meditation ?
Can you rephrase your question?
>> >Why do you feel the need to defend aspects of Siddhartha's life?
>>
>> I feel it is only right to point out errors others make in ignorance
>> of the facts regarding Siddhartha's life.
>>
>
>Sounds like these "errors" wound you.
I value fairness, impartiality and truth. I do not take anything
others may say about buddhism personally.
>When was this "final birth" ?
500 years ago.
>> This elusive architect is Craving or Attachment, a self
>> created force latent in all.
>>
>
>So you believe in self-creation?
Craving or Attachment is a self created force.
Respectfully,
Mozz x